Re: [gnso-osc-ops] ACTION ITEMS: GNSO Operations Work Team 29 April 2009 Meeting
I suggest that we just delete the example altogether, as it is meant to be illustrative and not a substantive recommendation on policy issues. If someone really feels that an example is necessary of what we all think needs addressing, then we can find an example we can all agree on to include in the text, but I don't really think an example adds anything to the text and so is unnecessary.
Thanks, Robin On Apr 30, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Ron Andruff wrote:
Robin and all,With change comes the opportunity to review how the GNSO discussion could be shaped going forward, so let’s put aside the dialogue about which constituencies want what and move on.I agree that the WT should never appear nor be biased on one issue or another, but our objective is to serve the greater good by getting the community to think about what we are talking about. Here is the para in entirety so that the intent of using the selected example is kept in context:In addition, the Policy Council would consider and determine a means of studying and examining issues that need addressing, e.g., malicious use/abuse of domain names. This role would ensure that there is a suitable and well-supported issues analysis process; preparation of supporting and informational materials that are then made available widely for public comment; broaden education of the ICANN community about consequential issues as relevant; and would strengthen and deepen the understanding of issues, enabling solutions to be identified more rapidly, and explored thoroughly. Identifying solutions that are drawn from a basis of fact supports ICANN’s core mission and is the bridge to ICANN’s core principle of building consensus.If our reformed GNSO applies the thinking noted above in bold text to the very issue at the heart of this debate between us – the example of malicious use/abuse of domain names – it would be encouraging fresh thinking about problem resolution by the larger community, toward a better Internet. For this reason, I think the original text makes clear what such an issue that needs addressing is, and – perhaps because as much as it is a hot button issue – it should be left as is.On the other hand, I support another example that we can all agree on with the understanding that it be an equally obvious important issue that impacts all Internet users in one form or another, and is gathering strength as a result of being inadequately addressed.At its core, a key element of the delineation of duties in the proposal is intended to enable information gathering teams to form and report back on their findings to the larger Internet community, as represented by the GNSO. Information is everyone’s friend, but it is something that the community lacks in large measure on major impact issues that are gathering strength on the horizon. Identify such another issue and I am fine with that.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 2859From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc- ops@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin GrossSent: 2009-04-30 12:59 To: Ron Andruff Cc: 'GNSO Ops Work Team'Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] ACTION ITEMS: GNSO Operations Work Team 29 April 2009 MeetingHello 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 2859From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc- ops@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin GrossSent: 2009-04-29 19:31 To: jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx; Ray Fassett Cc: GNSO Ops Work TeamSubject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] ACTION ITEMS: GNSO Operations Work Team 29 April 2009 MeetingThanks 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 HedlundPolicy 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
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