RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Adobe Connect - Chat Transcript from International Olympic Committee and Red Cross Names

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

Like Jeff, I don't understand Avri's assessment that "our group does not have 
very diverse participation" and would appreciate further explanation.

Because I was one who suggested that Jeff send out a request to our group to 
get feedback from our respective groups, let me clarify that I did not envision 
a questionnaire.  For us to realistically get feedback for our next call in 
less than two weeks, we need the message from Jeff right away.  As Avri states, 
a questionnaire should be approved by the group and it likely would take us 
until Prague to get even a simple one developed, distributed and receive 
answers.

I mainly wanted to make sure that we were all seeking feedback on the same 
general issues.  It won't help us much if we each come back with feedback on 
different issues.  That doesn't mean that other issues cannot be raised; that 
would be fine.  Below are some questions that I personally think feedback would 
be helpful on before our next call along with a possible intro statement.

"The GAC has requested that second level names involving certain IOC and RC 
names receive protection in the introduction of new gTLDs (insert link to GAC 
request).  Note that a PDP will be initiated to look at this issue on a broader 
scale going forward but it is not likely that that could impact the first round 
of new gTLDs (insert link to motion).  The GNSO drafting team working on this 
issue needs to provide the Council a possible response to the GAC request.  To 
help us in that regard, please communicate thoughts you have on the following, 
which will then be shared on the DT list and in our next call scheduled for 14 
June:

1. Should we leave the guidebook as is (i.e., no special protections for IOC 
and RC names at the second level in the first round) and let the PDP takes its 
course for future rounds?

2. Should we consider possible temporary protections for certain IOC and RC 
names in the first round and thereby be at least partially responsive to the 
GAC request?  There are ways this could be proposed that are not limited to the 
following: 1) Define a list of reserved names; 2) define a list of reserved 
names with an exception procedure similar to what is done for 2-character 
second level names.  It is understood that either of these approaches would 
need a lot more detail but it would be helpful to know if there is support for 
pursuing the idea further.

3. Please feel free to provide other ideas for item 2 as well as to raise any 
other questions or comments you have on this topic in general."

I encourage members of the DT to modify this however you think best or to 
suggest something totally different, but I really think Jeff needs to get 
something out to our list no later than tomorrow to give us time to get 
feedback.

Chuck



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 12:10 PM
> To: Avri Doria; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Adobe Connect - Chat Transcript from
> International Olympic Committee and Red Cross Names
> 
> 
> Avri,
> 
> 1.  Not sure a questionnaire was going to be drafted, but it was
> basically just sending out the questions we have been discussing,
> including ultimately positions on the GAC proposals at the second level
> that are being solicited.  In order to do that, however, we should be
> sure that our SGs/constituencies have all of the information that we
> have been provided over the last several weeks and we can make
> ourselves (the reps on the DT) to our SGs/constituencies, to answer
> those questions.  Not sure what Marika's comment was referring to on
> that one.
> 
> 2.  Our group does have diverse participation with all SGs and
> constituencies (with the exception of the registrars which I understand
> a rep will be joining us shortly).  They may not have all been there
> yesterday, but rest assured, they are in the group, on the mailing
> list, and have been on the calls.
> 
> 3.  I started to draft the note, but was abruptly stopped by members of
> the council who still wanted more clarification. So, to the point, no
> note was actually drafted to send to Heather.  I understand the need to
> a balanced view, so yes, if we do move forward with that, I will
> provide the draft to the Council.
> 
> 4.  On your point 3, not sure what the discussion at the g-council,
> which has already been happening affects the work of this DT.  But this
> DT, in my opinion, but that is an issue for the GNSO Council to take up
> if they so choose.  For us, I think we should just keep moving forward
> towards a recommendation on a response to the GAC proposal to send to
> the GNSO.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 11:54 AM
> To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Adobe Connect - Chat Transcript from
> International Olympic Committee and Red Cross Names
> 
> 
> 
> On 30 May 2012, at 15:09, Marika Konings wrote:
> 
> >> avri:a questionnaire is a good idea.  perhaps publish the draft on
> >> the list.
> 
> 
> We were given an assignment yesterday of going back to our
> Constituencies and Stakeholder groups with some question or other.
> 
> It is also seemed like a questionnaire would be prepared.  I think this
> is a good idea so that we are all collecting the same information and
> we do not end up trying to compare, apples, eggs and rocks.  I would
> like to suggest that this group agree on that questionnaire before we
> start using it.
> 
> Also, I have noticed that our group does not have very diverse
> participation, i.e we are missing people from some of the GNSO
> constituencies and Stakeholder groups.  If this was a working group
> under the rules of working groups are efforts would be denigrated by
> this skewed participation make up.  I do not recall if there are any
> guideline for now this extraordinary drafting team functions, but the
> lack of constituency diversity in this group seems like a liability to
> me.  Certainly somebodty has to make sure those constituencies and
> stakeholder group's who are not covered by membership are also
> consulted on an issue this important.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally , from the council decision that we never really discussed
> because it wasn't posted until the discussion was gaveled closed,
> 
> "  "Stéphane van Gelder suggested that Jeff Neuman, the
> > chair of the GAC/GNSO issues related to International Olympic
> Committee.
> > (IOC) & Red Cross (RC) names drafting group, inform the group on
> > behalf of the Council to continue their work. Stéphane van Gelder ask
> > Jeff Neuman to draft a couple of sentences to the Heather Dryden, the
> > GAC chair with an update on the Council position.Include a discussion
> > of the continued work on the second level in the agenda for the next
> > Council meeting."
> 
> 1. Where there any specific details about which work we should
> continue.  For example from listening to the transcript I understood
> that part of the work they expect from us was the completion of
> reports, including the work on gathering and analyzing the written and
> transcript evidence provided by IOC and IFRC.
> 
> 2. In the drafting of the sentence, will Jeff, as this teams chair be
> consulting with this group on the correct balance to be contained in
> those sentences?
> 
> 3. To what degree do the upcoming discussion on discussion in the g-
> council on second level protections affect the work of this group in
> going beyond documentation work being done and research on needs and
> differentiating factors.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> avri