ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Adobe Connect - Chat Transcript from International Olympic Committee and Red Cross Names
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 14:55:27 -0400


In terms of my impressions of the group's diversity, I was looking at the 
attendance list.  I am happy to be assured by our chair and Chuck that we have 
the full involvement of all SGs.

As for additional questions now that we building a list I think we need to also 

3. Should the consideration of new protections at the second level also take 
into account the other organizations who have indicated a need for such 
protections, a set of global public service institutions all of whom have their 
own excellent reasons for thinking they merit/need such special protections.

4. If it is reasonable to consider only 2 global public service organizations 
for such considerations:  Since the IFRC and IOC each have their own sui 
generis reasons for why they merit such protections, should the question be 
divided; i.e. deal with the IFRC and the IOC names at the second level as 
separate critical sui generis issues.  

On issue 4, if I understood the discussion yesterday of what they each needed, 
they did not sound like they were even asking for the same thing.

5. What sort of evidence and benchmarks do the SG and Constituencies consider 
adequate for judging the extraordinary nature of the need.

A question I would like to see, but my hopes are low for:

x. Should the Drafting team be considering a response to the GAC that indicates 
that work will continue using the "defined processes of the GNSO" as opposed to 
continuing such important considerations in a hurried and ad-hoc manner to 
reach a quick answer.


On 31 May 2012, at 13:54, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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,
>> "  "St├ęphane 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. St├ęphane 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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy