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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric,

I don't understand what you mean when you say "as the New gTLD PDP took
place prior to reform, CORE was not a participant".  Even though the new
gTLD PDP preceded the open working group model that we use today, it was
operated in a very open manner and Werner Staub was a very active
participant throughout.  In fact it was Werner who really got us
thinking about the concept of community gTLDs in new ways.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 10:13 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Avri Doria; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
> 
> 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 process.
> 
> 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 utterances.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Eric
>