[gnso-vi-feb10] RE: First Draft of VI Initial Report v.1
- To: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: First Draft of VI Initial Report v.1
- From: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:33:25 -0700
Here are my comments on the Initial Draft Report, some of these may be have
sent to the list so far, but will include just in case:
* I do favor the language that states if there is strict separation
then an exceptions procedure should be incorporated. This is what I was trying
to state as a baseline on the call today
* I still am not sure that there is consensus for SRSU exception since
we do not have an agreed upon SRSU exception and should thus not be included as
a standalone but be part of exceptions
* Please remove the term AGBv4. We are already swimming in alphabet
soup and everyone already knows DAGv4
* After reading this I am in favor of including in the report and am OK
with the edits KK and others have added as they seem impartial. I would not be
opposed to changing the title or if forced to place in Annex, but would prefer
* I believe this sentence is overly critical and I am not sure this is
the view of many. Would agree that people raised concerns but to say many
raised serious concerns about the ability to actually function does not feel
representative of the group "Many also noted that ICANN's track record raises
serious concerns about ICANN's ability to develop, staff and make operationally
effective an enforcement bureau function that would be necessary to monitor and
enforce against harms or violations of rules developed by the VIWG.
* I would suggest we add the sentence that is in the Executive Summary
that states if ICANN adopts a requirement of strict separation, when explaining
Last but not least, I truly believe that the poll and its results should be
included in this report. I do not think we need any commentary around it, just
to state this poll was sent around on this date, prior to the issuance of the
initial report. Here are the results from the respondents. People can read the
questions and the answers and draw their conclusions.
This poll is an output of this Working Group and is reflective of the months
and months of calls and discussions that we had. First off I think the idea to
hide it in plain sight by saying it is on the public list so why should we
include it is plain and simple, an attempt to hide it. If it is on the public
list and can be accessed then let's include it. Why make it harder for people
to see the poll.
Second, to say that people were causal or just goofing off when they filled
this out is a prejudicial assumption that unfairly discounts members
participation and is a blatant attempt to de-emphasize the poll and its results.
I do agree that we must wait for the poll to be complete before it is included
in the initial report.
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 7:24 PM
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] First Draft of VI Initial Report v.1
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.
Senior Policy Counselor
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include
privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc.
Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the
intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and
then delete it from your system. Thank you.