RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Draft Public Comment For Review- Final Version

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Jeff - and, yes, I have been soliciting the NCSG/NCUC membership for 
comments and as everyone else this has been done in a rushed way. Needless to 
say that the members that have responded on the mailing list did not agree with 
the recommendation that was eventually put forward by the DT - they were 
actually in favour of option number 1. That is one of the reasons I was 
suggesting that the GNSO should be given all options that have been vetted by 
SGs.

Now, above and beyond ICANN's SGs, there are also other entities and 
individuals that might want to respond, just as they do so in other public 
comment periods for other issues. Asking our SGs for their input is - and 
should not be - viewed as equivalent to a public comment period.

Thanks

Konstantinos

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

Senior Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
Graham Hills building, 
50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA 
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org


-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Δευτέρα, 5 Μαρτίου 2012 2:32 μμ
To: Konstantinos Komaitis; 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Margie Milam'; 
'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
Cc: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Draft Public Comment For Review- Final Version 

Konstantinos,

With respect to the recommendations, we were all asked to vet them with our 
applicable stakeholder groups, constituencies, ACs, etc. since we started this 
process back in November.  I have seen your NCSG mailing list, so I know that 
you have been soliciting feedback throughout the process, which we appreciate.  
The other members of the DT have been doing the same thing.  Do not misconstrue 
this message, I am completely in favor of getting input from the community, but 
just for my sake so I can understand, who do you believe that we will be 
missing comments from?

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs


The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.



-----Original Message-----
From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 8:53 AM
To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; Neuman, Jeff; 'Margie Milam'; 'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
Cc: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Draft Public Comment For Review- Final Version 

Putting aside the Staff and the role that it has played into this whole 
process, I personally feel very uneasy with the idea of asking the GNSO to vet 
on this issue without having received input from the community. This is the 
whole idea of bottom up process and we should make sure that we stick to it. I 
understand the tight timeframe but we should not sacrifice due process and 
representation just because we are running out of time. 

Thanks

Konstantinos

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

Senior Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM Information 
Technology and Telecommunications Law University of Strathclyde, The Law 
School, Graham Hills building,
50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Δευτέρα, 5 Μαρτίου 2012 1:08 μμ
To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Margie Milam'; 'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
Cc: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Draft Public Comment For Review- Final Version 


I seriously think we need to discuss staff's role in supporting the GNSO.  I 
was under the apparently false impression that their role was to serve us, in 
other words respond to our direction as long as we do not violate the Bylaws. 
But even if we violated the Bylaws, they should never go against our direction 
before attempting to communicate with us.

Am I missing something here?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc- 
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 6:47 AM
> To: 'Margie Milam'; 'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
> Cc: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'
> Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Draft Public Comment For Review- 
> Final Version
> 
> 
> Just reread the last sentence....gotta love iPad's. It should say that 
> the perception that neither the gnso council or "board" can act until 
> the public comment period is over.
> 
> Sorry for the typo.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent with Good (www.good.com)
> 
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:         Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 06:44 AM Eastern Standard Time
> To:   'Margie Milam'; 'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
> Cc:   'Stéphane Van Gelder'
> Subject:      RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Draft Public Comment For Review-
> Final Version
> 
> 
> All,
> 
>  I just wanted everyone to know that despite the conversation on the 
> list and the fact that i edited the comment period description to end 
> the day before the Council meeting, ICANN staff decided to have the 
> public comment period end March 23, and this new "reply period" to end 
> on April 14th (2 days after the application window closes).  I wanted 
> to bring this to everyone's attention because I fully expect Icann 
> staff to defend their letter of the status quo for round 1 based 
> solely on the fact that the public comment period ends after the 
> window closes.  I am extremely disappointed In yet another attempt to 
> circumvent our process and the work we are doing and would like to add 
> this to the list of questions for Icann staff.  I also expect 
> criticism from the community if we ask the gnso to act before the 
> public comment period ends.  I have already have 2 reporters point 
> this out to me and ask if that meant that the notion of changes were 
> "killed".  (I did not respond).
> 
> I would like to ask for those dates to be revised so as to not create 
> confusion or the perception that neither the gnso council or the 
> stafford can act before the comment period is up.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent with Good (www.good.com)
> 
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:         Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 08:44 PM Eastern Standard Time
> To:   'Margie Milam'; 'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
> Subject:      RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Draft Public Comment For Review-
> Final Version
> 
> 
> Thanks Margie.  We really appreciate the quick turnaround,
> 
> 
> 
> Sent with Good (www.good.com)
> 
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:         Margie Milam [mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 05:40 PM Eastern Standard Time
> To:   gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject:      [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Draft Public Comment For Review-  Final
> Version
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> 
> 
> I accepted Jeff’s revisions and caught a few typos.   The proposal is
> untouched, except to add a footnote with the date.
> 
> 
> 
> Since there don’t appear to be any more comments,  this will be 
> forwarded for posting.
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> 
> Margie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 1:32 PM
> To: Margie Milam; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Draft Public Comment For Review
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the delay, but this looks right to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for 
> the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential 
> and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient 
> you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, 
> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly 
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please 
> notify us immediately and delete the original message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc- 
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Margie Milam
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 2:32 PM
> To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Draft Public Comment For Review
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> 
> 
> Attached for your review is the DT Proposal to be posted with the
> Public Comment announcement discussed in below.   I have also attached
> a redline indicating the changes from the Status Report.
> 
> 
> 
> Please let me know ASAP if you have any suggested changes or revisions 
> to this document.
> 
> 
> 
> All the best,
> 
> 
> 
> Margie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Margie Milam
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 12:03 PM
> To: 'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: Draft Public Comment For Review
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> 
> 
> As discussed on today’s call, please find attached for your review the 
> announcement of the opening of a public comment on the proposed 
> solution. I will circulate the proposal document separately.
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide any comments ASAP.  I  plan to forward to the web admin 
> team, per the DT’s instructions, this afternoon, at 4:00pm PST.
> 
> 
> 
> All the best,
> 
> 
> 
> Margie
> 
> 
>