RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Our Initial VI WG Report - an Outline

["Thomas Barrett - EnCirca" <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would support including the CAM proposal in the initial report.
 
My position has evolved to one where ALL exceptions from 0% co/vi need to be
reviewed.  This would allow for applications that include 100% co/vi.  Any
standard that allows exceptions as a baseline is simply picking one special
interest over another.
 
As a Working Group, we should focus on identifying the process that is
followed to grant exemptions, not the exemptions themselves.  
 
The Exception WG has identified types of exceptions that are expected to be
granted.  We have a concensus on these categories.  Let's assume there are
others.  We do not need to identify all the exceptions.
 
Consensus on types of exceptions is NOT the same as saying that any
applicant claiming one of these exceptions gets a green light without a
review.  They still need to go through a review process and be granted an
exemption by a similar body that the CAM proposal has called
"Competition/Consumer Evaluation Standing Panel".  Think of it as analogous
to the new gtld string requirements process.  This review body needs to be
in place for the first round of new gtld applications and should be
incorporated into the "Initial Evaluation" phase described in the DAG
Guidebook.
 
This body should be able to handle 99% of all cases without delaying
processing of individual applications.  Referral to national competition
authorities is not a desirable outcome.  There should some refund of the
application fee if an exception is not granted.
 
regards,
 
Tom Barrett
EnCirca
 
 


  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 2:07 PM
To: 'Kathy Kleiman'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Our Initial VI WG Report - an Outline



Kathy,

 

The strength of the CAM proposal is that the exception mechanism is driven
by experts with consultation with National competition authorities, thus
ensuring the protection of the public interest as set forth in the
Affirmation of Commitment.

 

Most other people seem to focus on "narrowly tailored exceptions" that
somehow align with their commercial/financial interests.

 

So do you oppose CAM being included into the Initial Report?

 

Best regards,

 

Michael

 

 

From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kKleiman@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 1:58 PM
To: Michael D. Palage; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Our Initial VI WG Report - an Outline

 

Michael,

My sense from the problem statement, objective and presentation of  the CAM
proposal is that the Exception is the Rule, the Goal.  

 

That's not the point of the Exceptions piece that I see posted to the WG. It
is a set of very narrowly-tailored exceptions that we have discussed
extensively and agree upon greatly. 

 

Kathy Kleiman

Director of Policy

.ORG The Public Interest Registry

Direct: +1 703 889-5756  Mobile: +1 703 371-6846

 

Visit us online!

Check out events & blogs at  <http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> .ORG Buzz!

Find us on Facebook |
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/dotorg/203294399456?v=wall> dotorg

See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on  <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> Flickr

See our video library on  <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> YouTube

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:

Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If
received in error, please inform sender and then delete.

 

 

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 1:26 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Our Initial VI WG Report - an Outline

 

Kathy,

 

Any reason why you would object to the CAM proposal from being incorporated
into this Initial Report ?

 

In fact based upon the recent exemption discussion, I think the CAM proposal
would be particularly constructive on this subject matter.

 

I would encourage people to read the most recently proposal CAM proposal
posted on the VI WG wiki, 

 

Summary - https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?camv3_summary

Proposal - https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?camv3 

 

Best regards,

 

Michael 

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 12:51 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; Mike O'Connor; Roberto Gaetano
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Our Initial VI WG Report - an Outline

 

Dear Mikey and Roberto,

I checked the schedule Mikey published a few weeks ago, and realize we have
a hard deadline of today for receiving the Initial Report, Thursday for
reviewing the Initial Report, and Friday for publishing our Initial Report.
Thus, I think we have reached the end of our discussion - and come to the
point where we must put our ideas out for the community to review and
comment. 

 

As I don't see an Initial Report before us, I would suggest that our work to
date provides all the documents we need - and the compilation could be done
quickly, as soon as possible.  

 

I suggest that our Initial Report should include:

1)      The Two Main Proposals on which we Converged before Brussels:  the
JN2 proposal, and the RACK+ proposal. Since there is concern about the
Brussels process, and especially those who could not join us in the
discussions, I propose that each proposal's initial team decide (very
quickly, today) which version of their proposal they would like to include.
These proposals should be listed side-by-side.

2)      The Exceptions Piece, the most recent version, which I believe is
the piece posted by Avri today. 

3)      The Compliance Piece, the most recent version, which I believe is
the piece circulated by Ken or Brian late last week.

 

These are the elements of our work, the framework of our agreement. I think
it would be full and fair to compile these materials and publish them as it
is now time to let others ponder and comment on our work to date. 

 

All the best,

 

Kathy Kleiman

Director of Policy

 

.ORG The Public Interest Registry

1775 Wiehle Avenue, Suite 200

Reston, Virginia 20190  USA

 

Main: +1 703 889-5778  | Direct: +1 703 889-5756  

Mobile: +1 703 371-6846 | Fax: +1 703.889.5779  

E:   <mailto:clee@xxxxxxx> kkleiman@xxxxxxx       |  W:
<http://www.pir.org/> www.pir.org

 

Visit us online!

Check out events & blogs at  <http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> .ORG Buzz!

Find us on Facebook |
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/dotorg/203294399456?v=wall> dotorg

See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on  <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> Flickr

See our video library on  <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> YouTube

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:

Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If
received in error, please inform sender and then delete.