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

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>]

also in Baku for IGF so ditto from me...
On Nov 3, 2012 1:35 AM, "Jonathan Zuck" <jzuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  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>
> Date: Fri, November 02, 2012 1:47 pm
> To: Berry Cobb <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <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.
>
>
>
>
>   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
> 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<owner-gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx>]
> *On Behalf Of *Berry Cobb
> *Sent:* Friday, November 02, 2012 2:44 PM
> *To:* 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
> @berrycobb
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>