RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Protections Strawman - Thomas Rickert

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

Note that I should have said 'Haven't the RC, IOC, and IGOs defined the problem 
as well as the Board and the GAC'?

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:05 AM
To: Robin Gross; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Protections Strawman - Thomas Rickert

Robin,

Haven't the RC, RC, and IGOs defined the problem as well as the Board and the 
GAC.  Of course that is from their perspective which we should expect, but I am 
not sure we need to spend more time defining the problem.  I think our time 
would be better spent deciding whether think the problem as defined needs a 
solution and, if so, what should that solution be.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 5:06 PM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Protections Strawman - Thomas Rickert

We should also add to the work program a specific discussion on "what is the 
specific problem we are trying to solve" as others suggested on today's call.

It may be that there are different understandings as to what the problem is 
(for example: are costs too high?  is scope not broad enough?  some aspect of a 
particular RPM  inadequate?)  We should be discussing the which and how and why 
of these issues to understand the specific problem we need to solve, and then 
we are in a position to address solutions that problem.

Proposing solutions before identifying the problem is backwards.  Seems like we 
would be throwing darts in the dark to not have this fundamental discussion up 
front.

Thanks,
Robin

On Nov 28, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

NCSG fully supports David's revision since it more accurately reflects the 
views expressed, and will focus our work efforts in a more logical formulation 
(i.e. not putting the cart before the horse).  Thank you.

Best,
Robin

On Nov 28, 2012, at 12:33 PM, David W. Maher wrote:

Attached is my proposed revision of the protections straw-man.

David W. Maher
Senior Vice President - Law & Policy
Public Interest Registry
312 375 4849

From: Berry Cobb 
<mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:40:16 -0500
To: 
"gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>"
 
<gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Protections Strawman - Thomas Rickert

Team,

Attached is a word document for the group to respond and/or suggest changes to 
the protections straw-man started by Thomas.  Please send your suggestions to 
the list and I can incorporate changes into a master document.

Thank you.  B

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


<IGO-INGO_strawman_v0.1[1] dwm rev 28 Nov 2012.docx>



IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: 
robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>





IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: 
robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>