RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3, attendance 26 September 2012

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

It is ridiculous to me for these reasons:

1.      In the call yesterday, everyone was encouraged and allowed to say 
whatever they wanted and lots of people communicated their concerns and 
disagreements.

2.      Everyone was encouraged to include any statements of disagreement and 
told that they would be included in the public comment posting.

3.      Each group represented was asked to report on their group’s position as 
requested several weeks ago and given full opportunity to do that.

4.      The chair did not try to influence anyone’s sharing except to make sure 
there was clear understanding.

5.      There was not one thing that happened that would provide any evidence 
of suppressing disagreement; in fact, quite a few participants communicated 
their disagreement on a variety of issues; the only point made that could 
possibly be interpreted to be suppressed was a suggestion from one member of 
the RySG that many of us thought was out of scope for the call, i.e., adding 
language involving IGOs.

6.      To imply that anyone tried to suppress disagreement without even 
listening to the call is unfair, not constructive and harmful to the process.

Please listen to the call and report any evidence you can find that there was 
suppression of disagreement.  It is fine to have fears and you may feel they 
are justified but please back them up with facts before suggesting wrong doing 
and thereby impugning others.

Chuck


From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 2:00 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Neuman, Jeff; 'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'; Wolfgang Kleinwächter
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3, attendance 26 
September 2012


Hi,

I am very glad that you consider this ridiculous. On the other hand I have a 
very clear view of how this WG, oh I mean DT, behaved last time it had a 
'consensus' and do not consider such fears at all ridiculous. If I see what 
looks to me like a repeat of the railroad behavior of last time, I am going to 
call, it for what it appears to be,

avri
"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Avri,


Thanks for clarifying.  In fairness to Jeff, he asked for an NCSG position not 
a personal opinion and if Wolfgang said it was a personal opinion, I missed it, 
but I confess that I had a little trouble understanding him, so it is quite 
possible that I missed it.


I find it really surprising that you would say “I really hope that we are not 
once again using this DT to suppress disagreement.”  That is ridiculous in my 
opinion.  It was made extremely clear that every statement of disagreement 
would be included and there was absolutely no effort to encourage participants 
to agree let alone not allow them to speak freely.


You appear to be defining consensus as unanimous agreement.  In the call 
yesterday, it was agreed that we did not have that on recommendation 2; but 
there was very strong support for it from everyone on the call and some who 
communicated support before the call.  We may have come close to having that on 
recommendation 1 as long as we recognize that there were several who said that 
they didn’t think a PDP was necessary but were willing to compromise in 
supporting it as a result of the group discussions.


No one had only one day to submit comments.  We have all had weeks to write 
those and more specifically we have known that 26 September was our deadline 
for at least two weeks.  Also, we have had the final wording of the consensus 
call recommendations for about a week.  Quite a few participants in our 
discussion group submitted statements before yesterday’s call that will be 
included.


I do have one question for you.  Was the NCSG unanimous in its opposition to 
recommendation 2?  At one point you indicated that there was not total NCSG 
agreement; it would be informative to find out the level of agreement in the 
NCSG.


Chuck


From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:23 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; 'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'; Wolfgang Kleinwächter
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3, attendance 26 
September 2012


hi,

He informed the NCSG list that he was speaking purely personally and not for 
the NCSG.

I really hope that we are not once again using this DT to suppress 
disagreement. I have been very clear for a while now that you do not have 
agreement from the NCSG for a moratorium recommendation. To miss one meeting 
and have that erased would really be a misuse of even this misapplication of 
GNSO process.

I know it is predetermined that they will get special privileges not available 
to others and not established through proper process, but it should not go down 
as something that has consensus.

Also giving only one day for the submission of comments is a bit arbitrary and 
prejudicial in my opinion.
"Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Avri,

We are going to open up a public comment period on everything that has been 
received by COB today (wherever you are in the world)...just so Berry and ICANN 
has it when they come into the office in the morning Friday,  that said, 
Wolfgang was on from the NCSG yesterday, but did not express opposition to the 
moratorium.  I thought, and we can check the recording, that he said the NCSG 
supported the recommendations.  I could be off base, and Berry was taking notes 
so he can correct me.

In either case, that opinion is not set in stone, but it is important as it 
sounded like on the call the was indeed a consensus on all of the 
recommendations (if just a rough consensus).  So, if you could confirm the NCSG 
position that would be great.

Thanks.

Sent with Good (www.good.com<http://www.good.com>)


-----!

 Original

Message-----
From:  Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 02:31 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3, attendance 26 
September 2012

I unfortunately could not attend the meeting.

I want to make it clear that I do not support a the moratorium, but do support 
the PDP
I also believe that this is the position of the NCSG.

I hope that this is what was conveyed by the lone NCSG participant.

What is the deadline for opposing statements?


Nathalie Peregrine 
<nathalie.peregrine@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:nathalie.peregrine@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:



 Dear all,



  Please find the MP3 recording of the GAC/GNSO issues related to International 
Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) names discussion group 
teleconference held on Wednesday 26 September 2012  at 1800 UTC at:



!

   http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-gac-ioc-20120926-en.mp3



  On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep



 The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master 
Calendar page:

  http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ 
<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/><http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/%3e>;





 Attendees

  Jeff Neuman -  Registry SG group leader

   Wolfgang Kleinwachter – NCUC

   Lanre Ajayi - Nominating Committee Appointee

 &nbs!

 p; Alan

Greenberg – ALAC

   Chuck Gomes - RySG

  Kiran Malancharuvil – IPC

  David Heasley - IPC

   Jim Bikoff – IPC

   Stéphane Hankins – International Co!

 mmittee

of the Red Cross

   Thomas Rickert - Nominating Committee Appointee

   Osvaldo Novao -ISPC





  Apology :

   Avri Doria –  NCSG

   J.Scott Evans – IPC

   Gregory Shatan – IPC

   Mary Wong - NCUC

   Brian Peck



  ICANN Staff

   Margie Milam

   Berry Cobb

   Nathalie Peregrine





  ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **



  The mailing list address is

   !

 
Gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx%3cmailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
 <mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx%3cmailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> > 
<mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx%20%3cmailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
 >



 Public archives are at:http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-iocrc-dt/



 Thank you.

  Kind regards,



 Nathalie

  GNSO Secretariat

  gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx>

   &!

 nbsp;










Avri Doria

Avri Doria

Avri Doria