ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-iocrc-dt]


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

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

  • To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, "gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Adobe Connect - Chat Transcript from International Olympic Committee and Red Cross Names
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 19:08:34 +0000

Avri,

Please see my responses below.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 2:55 PM
> To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Adobe Connect - Chat Transcript from
> International Olympic Committee and Red Cross Names
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 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.
[Gomes, Chuck] Thanks for clarifying Avri.  I guess just about every GNSO WG 
has this problem from time to time.  In our case, the RrSG is the only SG that 
has not been represented.

> 
> As for additional questions now that we building a list I think we need
> to also ask:
> 
> 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.
[Gomes, Chuck] I don't see how this relates to the task of the DT.  It 
certainly relates to the PDP.

> 
> 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.
[Gomes, Chuck] How does this relate to the task of the DT?  As I understand our 
role, it is to propose a response to the GAC letter regarding just the two 
organizations.  If the Council directs us otherwise, we could expand our work.

> 
> 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.
[Gomes, Chuck] This would be good for us to clarify.

> 
> 5. What sort of evidence and benchmarks do the SG and Constituencies
> consider adequate for judging the extraordinary nature of the need.
[Gomes, Chuck] This seems reasonable to ask.
> 
> 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.
[Gomes, Chuck] I am personally okay with adding this question because it 
relates to the task given the DT.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> 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