Re: [gnso-osc-ops] ACTION ITEMS: GNSO Operations Work Team 29 April 2009 Meeting

[Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Ron,

Thanks for the email.

While I fully recognize that the IP and BC constituencies want ICANN  
to undertake such nontechnical regulatory role, there is much  
disagreement from other constituencies on this point.  (NCUC, for  
example, does not believe ICANN needs to move into nontechnical  
regulation issues as the text suggests).  Since there is NO agreement  
from the constituencies on this point, it does not belong in the text  
(the document should not take a side on this controversial issue,  
even though some may want it to).  We have to find an example that we  
can all agree on, or the document only reflects the wishes of certain  
constituencies for the future GNSO while explicitly ignoring the  
views of others.
Thank you,
Robin


On Apr 30, 2009, at 7:01 AM, Ron Andruff wrote:

> Ray,
> Robin,
>
> I agree with Robin’s points 1 (as we had already found the solution  
> to that point during the call) and 3; however, I don’t agree to  
> point #2.
> the malicious use/abuse of domain names is a colossal issue that  
> the IP and BC constituencies, to name two, are very concerned about  
> finding a resolution to.  These are exactly the type of issues that  
> the GNSO needs its policy councilors to study and examine and  
> report back to the community on.  There is no doubt that abuse of  
> domain names is something the body responsible for names and  
> numbers needs to address.  So I, for one, am against removing  
> this.  It is the right example to highlight serious issues that  
> ICANN has turned a blind eye to in the past, while malicious use  
> reeks havoc on the Internet at untold cost to users and providers  
> alike.  Moreover, this proposal is not meant to start a PDP on this  
> example, rather to focus the readers attention on what, exactly, do  
> we mean by “issues that need addressing”.  Where, how, and by whom  
> they are addressed, is not the point in this context.
> I welcome the views of the rest of the Work Team BEFORE any change  
> is made to this particular language.
> Kind regards,
>
> RA
>
> Ronald N. Andruff
> RNA Partners, Inc.
> 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor
> New York, New York 10001
>
> www.rnapartners.com
> V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11
> F:  +1 212 481 2859
>
> From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc- 
> ops@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
> Sent: 2009-04-29 19:31
> To: jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx; Ray Fassett
> Cc: GNSO Ops Work Team
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] ACTION ITEMS: GNSO Operations Work Team  
> 29 April 2009 Meeting
> Thanks for this revised version of the document. However, how do I  
> get the 3 points I raised incorporated into the document?
> On point 1 below, It looks like a footnote has been added to say  
> "maybe it could be Stakeholder Group" where it currently says  
> "constituency". But the better approach is to reverse that and use  
> the words "Stakeholder Group" throughout the document and a  
> footnote that says "maybe it could be constituencies". It seems  
> pretty obvious that SG are the way forward, so drafting this  
> document with the alternative in the main text is contrary to what  
> is happening in the restructuring process and will only lead to  
> more confusion with mixing up constituencies and stakeholder groups.
> Should I send a red-line version of the document with my proposed  
> edits that were not included in this revision?
> Thank you,
> Robin
> -----------------------------------
>
>
> 1. This document does not seem to take into account that it is  
> Stakeholder Groups (and not Constituencies) who are selecting GNSO  
> Councilors, etc. in the new GSNO framework.
> Since the NCUC as a "Constituency" is dissolving and will be  
> members of the NonCommercial Stakeholder Group, the framework  
> proposed in this document would not give those SG members any input  
> into these proposed new subgroups -- as they will be populated by  
> "Constituency" representatives in the wording of this document).
> If we change some of the language in the document to simply say  
> "Stakeholder Group" where it currently says "Constituency", we  
> could fix this problem.
> 2. I'd like to propose that we delete the phrase in the document  
> that states that "the malicious use/abuse of domain names" is an  
> issue that "needs addressing". While some in the GNSO believe that  
> is something the GNSO should undertake, many do not agree that  
> ICANN should expand its technical mission into this area, so this  
> document should not take a side on that debate.
> 3. One of the suggested functions of the policy councilors in the  
> proposed document is "considering the need for economic analysis".  
> As "economic" analysis is an important and valid concern for  
> business, it does not adequately capture the concerns of non- 
> commercial users in policy development, so I propose that we add  
> "or other" to this phrase to include the concerns of non-commercial  
> users. So it would instead read: "considering the need for economic  
> or other analysis". (@ top of p.4 and middle of p.3)
> That's it. Thank you!
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
> On Apr 29, 2009, at 3:58 PM, Julie Hedlund wrote:
>
>
> Dear Work Team Members,
> Here are the action items and main discussion points from our call.  
> Please let me know if you have suggestions for changes or  
> additions. These are posted on the wiki at: https://st.icann.org/ 
> icann-osc/index.cgi?gnso_operations_team I also have added a link  
> to the MP3 recording and will link to the transcript as soon as it  
> is available. Also, our next meeting will be on Wednesday, 13 May  
> 2009, at 1600 UTC.
> Action Items:
> 1. High-level operating principles:
> --Ron and Julie to revise the draft document incorporating edits  
> from the team and circulate it for review. (See attached document.)
> --Work Team to review and respond by Tuesday, 05 May.
> --Ray to circulate to select group of community members for  
> consideration: Marilyn Cade, Avri Doria, Roberto Gaetano, Chuck  
> Gomes, Robin Gross, Steve Metalitz, John Nevett, Philip Sheppard,  
> and Bruce Tonkin.
> 2. Statements/Declarations of Interest: Julie to revise the draft  
> document incorporating edits from the team and circulate it for  
> review. (See attached document.)
> 29 April 2009 Meeting -- Main Discussion Points (Link to: MP3,  
> Previous Meeting Notes and Links):
> 1. Approved the Work Team Charter.
> 2. Agreed to replace meeting notes with transcripts posted on the  
> wiki page, and to post/email action items and main points.
> 3. High level-operating principles:
> --Discussed the draft document with edits from Tony Holmes.
> --Recommended changes to the org chart, addition of a preamble, and  
> circulating the document to a select group prior to wider community  
> circulation.
> 4. SOI/DOI:
> --Suggested deleting legal language referencing California law.
> --Discussed positioning the document as a Statement of Interest/ 
> Declaration of Interest Policy, vs. Conflict of Interest.
> --Agreed to revise the document but redlines will allow Work Team  
> members not on the call to see both original and new text, for  
> consideration.
> Thank you very much.
> Best regards,
> Julie
> Julie Hedlund
> Policy Consultant<GNSO Ops WT Proposed GNSO Structure  
> (JHv3RAv3THv1).doc><GNSO OSC GCOT WT Draft SOI-DOI Policy v4.doc>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx