ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council

  • To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
  • From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 10:13:09 -0400

On 4/18/10 8:59 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> ...
> Finally, I apologise if the wording of the response caused this
> perception: "Please do not treat me like an idiot who disagrees with you
> just to 
> waste your time."  This is a debate that has occurred multiple times in
> the PDP itself and during implemenation and I confess to being
> personally frustrated that we are having to go through it again because
> I felt that it had been put to rest, while still be aware that Avri
> never did support it.

Of course, as the New gTLD PDP took place prior to reform, CORE was
not a participant, being excluded from the RyC, and not a member of
the groups of registrars which have the greatest influence in the RC

So I'm not commenting on that aspect, that is, the substantive issue.

I will comment on the process.

Edmon should not "lead" telephone conferences. It is hard enough for a
native English speaker, and everyone needs significant training to not
fill the time with "um" and "ah" fillers and other non-essential

Call schedules should be held to, not abandoned.

Absence of politeness, of civility or cordiality cannot have
constructive uses, though these are useful for preventing communication.

There are people in the ICANN community I no longer read under any
circumstances, in any venue, because I've no interest in sorting
through their self-justificational framework, or their
other-depricational framework, to find their actual ideas which are
not dependent upon self-promotion or other-demotion, and I've reached
my end of discourse with Avri.

This drafting team is small.

It can reasonably fail to make any recommendation concerning gTLD IDNs
which are distinct from gTLDs because the linkage between ccTLD IDNs
under FastTrack and gTLD IDNs under the new gTLD process in prior
policy statements is overtaken by events, or simply discarded.

[Adrian, this is your queue, to keep it simple, and friendly.]

This is why we cannot say anything about a Hebrew Script, Yiddish
Language, "museum-in-Yiddish" application by MuseDoma, or a Han
Script, Chinese Language, "commercial-in-SC-or-TC-or-Both", nor can we
say anything about a Hebrew Script, Yiddish Language,
"anything-in-Yiddish" or a Han Script, Chinese Language,
"anything-in-chinese", to pick two extreme example types using the
existing set of contracts and known competencies.

[Adrian, incumbents don't deserve more advantages, again, to keep it
simple, and friendly.]

It cannot reasonably fail because one person skipped a call, and did
not schedule any subsequent calls.

It cannot reasonably fail because two persons are conducting a
disagreement over whether an example should, or should not, have a
certain kind of covert, yet argued by the disputants, primary meaning.
It is not reasonable that choices around "ping the duck" lead to an
inability to state issues and report recommendations.

Significant changes of status of issues relating to the future of
ICANN and IDNs have taken place since this drafting team was formed.

I have a recommendation. I recommend that the drafting team
reconstitute, as a smaller group. I recommend that the parties who
have contributed to non-progress not insist upon their continuing
contribution to a second attempt by the reconstituted drafting team to
draft something more substantive than has been achieved to date, for
submission to the Council.

Failure over policy differences is reasonable. Failure over
administrative or presentation differences is unreasonable.

To paraphrase Adrian, it would be nice to get along, but we're not,
and we can do a couple of different things about that.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy