RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: First Draft of VI Initial Report v.1
All, Please find enclosed my proposed revisions to 2.2. As the person who begged ICANN in 2007 to start looking at this, this is how I remember things happening. No pride in authorship here, so feel free to edit, but I just want what happened accurately reflected. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 2:16 PM To: Mike O'Connor; Milton L Mueller Cc: 'Margie Milam'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: First Draft of VI Initial Report v.1 I am also preparing some edits of Section 2.2 (Background). I think there is some revisionist history going on :) If you read the background, you would have thought that the only reason we are discussing VI today is because of ICANN staff's proactive approach as opposed to members of the community dare I say "begging" ICANN staff to do something . I remember things a little differently than the way this reads and will supply my edits (but I promise to be nice ;)). Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 2:04 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: 'Margie Milam'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: First Draft of VI Initial Report v.1 a perfect example of the kind of review/suggestion i am hoping we can produce. i've started a punch-list of these... thanks, mikey On Jul 15, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: A comment: The following statement, especially when taken in context, seems exaggerated and could be cut altogether: "It cannot be overstated, based on public skepticism of historic enforcement challenges, that a new compliance and enforcement program should be in place, properly financed and staffed and operationally effective prior to changes that would open the door to potential anti-competitive conduct and abusive practices." I don't think there is wide consensus on this statement. One of my key concerns here is the words "prior to changes that would open the door" - this allows those who might be using "compliance" as a delaying or FUD tactic to claim always that we can't move forward because the proper mechanisms are not in place yet. In fact, compliance capabilities and techniques will always have to evolve in tandem with the implementation of new TLDs. As a practical matter we have to define the policy, start to implement it, and then at the same time calibrate our compliance and enforcement capabilities. From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Margie Milam Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 10:24 PM To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] First Draft of VI Initial Report v.1 Importance: High Dear All, In preparation for the call VI call tomorrow, please find attached the First Draft of the Initial Report for your review and consideration. As you review this Draft, please note that: * Due to the size of the document (currently over 90 pages!) I have excluded the annexes and provide only the text of the report. * The SRSU description is especially thin and needs further content from IPC representatives and from NCSG representatives. * Please disregard any formatting issues as I will be doing a more thorough review of the document as it becomes more final. * Once the results of the poll are in, someone will need to draft content with any observations that to be included in Section 6. Unfortunately, I will not be on tomorrow's call, but Marika will manage the call in my absence. I will be in an all-day meeting in MDR, and will follow up with Marika after the VI call. Best regards, Margie ____________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN ____________ - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) Attachment:
Comments on 2.2.docx
|