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 18:15:48 -0400


If we consider them separately it would still mean the g-council owed an answer 
on both, it just might not be the same answer.  Or even if it ended up the same 
answer in the end, it would mean it had gone through a discussion that was 
appropriate to its own unique kind of issue with it own unique needs.

I also do not think it is a question of giving GAC what they propose or 
nothing.  I think we have to explore the issue properly and make a decision 
that is consistent with GNSO policy considerations.  Should we decide not to 
recommend along the lines the GAC suggest, we would still be required to give 
them a full response as to why and not and why we are recommending as we are 

And of course in relation to the Board, they will need not to only to see that 
we carried out a proper process, assuming we do, they will need to see good 
reasons for why we are making the recommendation we are and how we took 
everything into account that needed to be taken into account on the issue of 
special permissions for 2 appellants.


On 31 May 2012, at 17:47, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Thanks Chuck and Avri.  These are helpful and I will collate these to send 
> out.  
> One question I have is on Number 4.  I will not offer my opinion on this, but 
> ask for others to consider.  In that question you ask whether we should treat 
> them the same given that they each seemed to tell us different things about 
> what they needed.  So, I believe that yes we can consider them separately.  
> However, please note as Chuck has stated, we are responding to the GAC 
> proposal.  The GAC proposal recommended essentially blocking of only exact 
> matches for both sets of marks in the enumerated languages.  That is the key 
> question regardless of what additional things were asked for during the call 
> (if any).  Sure we can choose to give the additional things (or not give 
> them), but lets only consider that issue AFTER we consider whether we will 
> recommending giving them (or not giving them) the protections requested by 
> the GAC.
> 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 Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:09 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,
> 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