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

["Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think anyone was suggesting that we "sacrifice due process and 
representation."  If we were proceeding without a comment period, I would see 
some merit in that characterization (although I would submit that the process 
we followed allowed for ample representation and was all that was required 
given the particular posture of our Group).  But that is not the case: the end 
result of our discussions was to institute a comment period, but to shorten the 
comment period so that it concluded before the end of the application period. 
Since this is not a formal PDP, there was/is flexibility to set comment periods 
other than the 21/21 day mandated periods for such things (or not to have them 
at all -- which was not where we ended up, but it was possible).

I believe these comment periods actually stifles debate by attempting to throw 
a bureaucratic "wet blanket" over our Group's attempts to have a meaningful 
outcome from our deliberations, at least during the first round of new gTLDs, 
which is really all that is meaningful at the moment.  Taken in concert with 
the staff's letter last week, it seems like the staff is doing what they can to 
block, rather than expedite, a meaningful result from this Group at the top 
level in the first round.  Could that be because this is an implicit criticism 
of the staff's (completely non-transparent) implemention of the Board 
resolution relating to IOC/RC names?

I think that using bureaucracy to derail constructive work is the true 
"sacrifice" of due process.  Hopefully, that will not be the end result of this 
situation.

Thank you.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis
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
> 
> 
> 
 
* * *
 
This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may 
well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice 
of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete 
this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any 
purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your 
cooperation.
* * *
To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, 
unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in 
this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to 
be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under 
the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) 
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters 
addressed herein.
Disclaimer Version RS.US.1.01.03
pdc1