Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda: IGO-INGO Meeting for 12 JUNE 2013 @ 16:00 UTC

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

Thanks. I missed in ti 4.4

While looking I found another issue:

In terms of 11 on page 32, it should be noted that there are some in the 
community who are strongly against the creation of a new mechanisms for 
reserved names that includes the exception procedure.  I would put myself 
personally in this category and beleive that this is consistent with NCSG 
positions on the topic.   I, and I beleive NCSG, do not accept the creation of 
a new reserved list/exception procedure, and I do not beleive we ever have.  
While we do not not support putting any names in the reserved list, any names 
that are put there should remain there until and unless released by the RESP 
process, no matter how challenging that process may be - the point is that it 
is an existing mechanisms and it does work without prejudice for all sorts of 
reserved names.

Please add a sentence like:

There is a portion of the community that is strongly opposed to the creation of 
any exception process for names on the reserved list.

thanks

avri


On 12 Jun 2013, at 00:35, Brian Peck wrote:

> 
> A "marker" and brief mention regarding the current status of the WG's 
> deliberations on the applicability of any adopted protection recommendations 
> for existing gTLDs is in the second paragraph of Section 4.4. Thanks. 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Brian
> 
> Brian Peck
> Policy Director
> ICANN
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 9:18 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> In any case it needs to be mentioned in the initial report, even if just as 
>> a amrker of work yet to be done.
>> 
>> And you are right, what I stated is  a principle I think we should always 
>> adhere to, the fairness principle.  But it is not the result of any 
>> conversations we have had.  On the issues of this particular group, it is 
>> easy for the incumbents to agree on all sorts of requirements for new gTLDs, 
>> that they themselves don't have to deal with.  It is for this reason that I 
>> always try to keep the fairness principle foremost in my mind.
>> 
>> I do disagree with you on deciding first what happens to the new gTLDS 
>> without also deciding on how the incumbents will meet the same requirements. 
>>  I am assuming that for every protection that is being argued for, there is 
>> an equivalent argument for why it is needed on the incumbent TLDs.  After 
>> all, any harm they have shown, only exists in the incumbents as an 
>> actuality.  Everywhere else it is merely possible.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 12 Jun 2013, at 00:03, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> I do not belive that we have spent any substantive time on if/how any 
>>> protections we recommend should apply to existing TLDs. Your assumption 
>>> that all protections must find an equivalent expression in existing TLDs is 
>>> a possible outcome, but I don't think we can assume it as a premise.
>>> 
>>> A possible answer to "determine how incumbent registries should meet the 
>>> new policy recommendations, if any" is "not at all". I'm not saying that 
>>> this is a preferred answer from my point of view, just that it is a 
>>> possible answer.
>>> 
>>> On a process level, it makes some sense to defer the discussion until we 
>>> actually have closure on the new gTLD protections, although it does make 
>>> sense to keep in mind that eventually we will need to look at the existing 
>>> TLDs as well. Presuming we will come to closure....
>>> 
>>> Alan
>>> 
>>> At 11/06/2013 10:55 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks that is the one I was looking at.  Wanted to make sure it was the 
>>>> latst and greatest.
>>>> 
>>>> I ,ay be missing it, but I see nothing about the pending charter work item 
>>>> we have not touched yet which is the implication of any new special 
>>>> consideration and how they would be effected on incumbent registries.
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps I am still missing it.  It seems to me that anything that we 
>>>> impose on new gTLDS must find equivalent expression in existing gTLDs, 
>>>> though the means and time tables may be different.
>>>> 
>>>> thanks
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 11 Jun 2013, at 19:17, Berry Cobb wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Here is the version that includes both Chuck's and Greg's comments and
>>>>> suggested changes.  Please use the attached to include any suggested edits
>>>>> you may have.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you.  B
>>>>> 
>>>>> Berry Cobb
>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>> 720.839.5735
>>>>> mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> @berrycobb
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx]
>>>>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 16:02
>>>>> To: GNSO IGO INGO (gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx)
>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda: IGO-INGO Meeting for 12 JUNE
>>>>> 2013 @ 16:00 UTC
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have lost track of the draft of record again:
>>>>> Which is the draft of the report that we are reviewing? URL?
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> 
>>>>> avri
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 8 Jun 2013, at 15:00, Berry Cobb wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please find below the proposed agenda for the next IGO-INGO PDP Working
>>>>> Group meeting.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO WG Meeting - 12 JUNE 2013 @ 16:00 UTC (120
>>>>> Min):
>>>>>> 1.     Roll Call / SOI Update
>>>>>> 2.     Review Initial Report and ready for public comment
>>>>>> 3.     Discussion of Next Steps
>>>>>> 4.     Confirm next meeting (19 June 2013 @ 16:00 (120 MIN))
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you.  B
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Berry Cobb
>>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>>> 720.839.5735
>>>>>> mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> @berrycobb
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> <IGO-INGO_Initial_Report_v0 9 3 with Gomes and Shatan edits.DOCX>
>> 
>> 
> 
>