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

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,
thanks for your valuable contributions.

As you know, we will have another call on this in about two hours. 

We should focus on finalizing the report. For that to be successful, we need to 
ensure that we 

- over the items we are chartered with and
- accurately present the current status of our deliberations.

In that regard, I would like to hear from the group - in particular Avri - 
whether the reference made to existing TLDs in 4.4. is deemed sufficient. 
As we move on with our work on the substance of our task, we will surely 
discuss the issue of incumbent TLDs in more depth. 

Also, if there were additional points on the report, please let us know. Please 
bear in mind that - as Chuck rightfully said - there will be the opportunity 
for all of you to comment on the report. 

Thanks,
Thomas

Am 12.06.2013 um 15:41 schrieb "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> 
> We need to keep in mind that any consensus policy recommendations the WG 
> makes will apply to all gTLDs unless any specific exceptions are noted, so 
> they would apply to both new and existing.  The fact of the matter is, as has 
> been pointed out by several, we have not yet examined the possible impact on 
> existing gTLDs and still need to do that to make sure that our 
> recommendations address existing gTLDs effectively.  With the exception of 
> situations where certain protected strings may already be registered at the 
> second level, there may not be much difference between policy for new and 
> existing strings.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:17 AM
> To: GNSO IGO INGO
> Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda: IGO-INGO Meeting for 12 JUNE 
> 2013 @ 16:00 UTC
> 
> 
> 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>
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>