RE: [gnso-consumercci-dt] Another meeting required?

[Jonathan Zuck <jzuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'll be at IGF so my Doodle might look more like a scribble but I'm in.

Sent from Windows Mail

From: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: ‎November‎ ‎2‎, ‎2012 ‎5‎:‎33‎ ‎PM
To: Michael R. Graham, Berry Cobb, gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consumercci-dt] Another meeting required?

another meeting is fine, Monday can work, but first I want to see a redline of 
the advice letter reflecting Jeff's concerns so that we might decide and 
produce a rationale.

John Berard
Founder
Credible Context
58 West Portal Avenue, #291
San Francisco, CA 94127
m: 415.845.4388


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-consumercci-dt] Another meeting required?
From: "Michael R. Graham" 
<mgraham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mgraham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Fri, November 02, 2012 1:47 pm
To: Berry Cobb <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
"gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>

Berry:

Thanks.  I think we need to (1) define and clarify Jeff’s concerns and 
objections, and (2) address them specifically and either in writing or printed 
transcript.  To complete this I think we’d have to “meet” Monday.  I would be 
available Monday until 3pm Central Standard Time U.S. for a conference call.

Michael R.



[cid:imagefc854a.GIF@35e0689f.4089dc0e]

Michael R. Graham
Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP
233 South Wacker Drive
6300 Willis Tower
Chicago, IL 60606-6357
Direct: (312) 474-6616
Firm: (312) 474-6300
Fax: (312) 474-0448
mgraham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mgraham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.marshallip.com<http://www.marshallip.com>


The material in this transmission may contain confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, any disclosure or use of this information by 
you is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, 
please delete it, destroy all copies and notify Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP 
by return e-mail or by telephone at (312) 474-6300. Thank you.

From: 
owner-gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 2:44 PM
To: gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-consumercci-dt] Another meeting required?

Team,

Given the dialogue on the list, shall I schedule another meeting for us to 
meet?  If so, let me know and I can send out a Doodle.  Else, we have until 
November 7th to submit the Advice Letter to the Council for consideration at 
the November 15th meeting.

With respect to the metrics identified in the Advice Letter, I’d like to remind 
everyone that one of the key messages in the advice is that a future AoC Review 
Team will make the final decisions about what metrics are used to conduct the 
review.  From the letter:

“The Working Group understands that the purpose of this advice is to provide 
the ICANN Board with definitions, measures, and targets that could be useful to 
the Affirmation review team that will convene one year after new gTLDs are 
launched.  However, the Working Group understands that this advice cannot 
pre-determine or otherwise limit the scope of the future Affirmation review 
team.  Additionally, this advice is not intended to recommend policy changes or 
policy development needs.  “

I do not want to minimize the WG efforts in identifying the proposed metrics, 
but in essence the proposed metrics at this point is just a “starter list.”  
The future Review Team will finalize which metrics are required to conduct the 
review across Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition.  Further, the 
Review Team will spend a considerable amount of time to not only identify which 
metrics are used, but the complete requirements of each metric will have to be 
flushed out.  The team will need to research the source owner of the data, the 
systems required to collect the data, how the metric will be presented, and the 
possible factors that may influence its result in addition to cost 
considerations.  As an example, after seeing results of a particular Consumer 
Choice metric, the future Review Team may in fact have to modify the scope of 
gTLD types being measured (e.g. whether Brand TLDs influence the result or a 
defined target).

The bottom line, each of these metrics (perhaps excluding surveys) will require 
a base source listing of each TLD that is delegated.  This base listing will 
contain TLD type (Brand, Geographic, IDN, etc.) in addition to other meta-data. 
 As the Review Team analyzes certain metrics, they will have the option to poll 
the entire universe of gTLDs/ccTLDs or specifically select a TLD type that best 
meets the final requirements of the stated metric.  Systems are being built now 
in support of the gTLD program and as such will likely be the primary source.

In close, there is a high probability that the future Review Team will accept 
most if not all of the proposed metrics offered in the advice.  Regardless, it 
is not the mandate of this WG to create a finalized list.  Continued efforts to 
refine these metrics may likely not return value given the larger tasks ahead 
of the future Review Team.

ICANN Staff will be happy to assist the WG however it wishes to proceed.

I hope this is helpful to the discussion.

Thank you.  B

Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
720.839.5735
mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
@berrycobb