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

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ron, I hear you, but I don't believe we need it in this document to fly the
kite.

 

Ray

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 12:59 PM
To: Ron Andruff
Cc: 'GNSO Ops Work Team'
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] ACTION ITEMS: GNSO Operations Work Team 29 April
2009 Meeting

 

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:
<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-ops-20090429.mp3> MP3,
<https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?osc_gnso_operations_team_meeting_n
otes> 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