Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Executive Summary edit

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The orphan TLD is actually the second-highest-rated "atom" from our poll, and 
the second-least-opposed, and by a wide margin in both cases.   Taking these 
two measures together, it is the atom that garnered the most agreement from the 
group. In fact, it has more agreement from the group than any other single 
atom, molecule or proposal.

If this does not constitute general agreement, then there is not a single thing 
in the report that has general agreement.   Please remember that "I didn't 
agree to that" is different than "the group doesn't agree on that." 

My point was that the "public interest" measure is not the criteria for an 
orphaned TLD.  An orphaned TLD is not orphaned because it's in the public 
interest or not, but because registrars are not willing to offer it to the 
public. 

Antony


On Jul 19, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

> Agree with Tim's statement here.
> 
> 
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> To: Antony Van Couvering 
> Cc: Mike O'Connor ; gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx ; Kathy Kleiman 
> Sent: Mon Jul 19 12:17:03 2010
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Executive Summary edit 
> 
> I disagree. There is no general agreement about community TLDs or orphaned 
> TLDs. Those are simply a couple of examples that some have suggested. 
> Including them disadvantages other exceptions that have been suggested as 
> well. 
> 
> Tim Ruiz
> Vice President
> Corp. Development & Policy
> The Go Daddy Group, Inc.
> Direct/Mobile: 319-329-9804
> Facsimile: 480-247-4516
> Email: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/truiz
> 
> How am I doing? Please contact my direct supervisor at president@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> with any feedback.
> 
> This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the 
> addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you 
> have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and 
> permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its 
> attachments.
>  
>  
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Executive Summary edit
> From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 12:43 pm
> To: Kathy Kleiman <kKleiman@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Thanks Kathy -- I would amend this slightly because it was not just "public 
> interest" that was the motivation -- it was also fairness to TLD operators, 
> regardless of whether there was a public interest dimension.
> 
> So, I would change this as follows, removing your brackets so as not to 
> confuse further.  CAPS means additions; "XXXX" on either side means deletion:
> 
> [Executive Summary] Another principle that is moving toward a consensus of 
> the Working Group support is the principle that in the event ICANN adopts a 
> requirement of XXXXstrictXXXX separation between registrars and registries, 
> an exceptions procedure should be incorporated into the New GTLD Program 
> XXXXbased on certain public interest needs where those needs would not 
> otherwise be addressed, possiblyXXXX to includeXXXXdXXXX  “community” TLDs 
> and “orphaned” TLDs AMONG OTHERS. 
> 
> A clean version would read as follows:
> [Executive Summary] Another principle that is moving toward a consensus of 
> the Working Group support is the principle that in the event ICANN adopts a 
> requirement of separation between registrars and registries, an exceptions 
> procedure should be incorporated into the New GTLD Program, to 
> include“community” TLDs and “orphaned” TLDs, among others. 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 19, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> 
>> Mikey,
>> Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but isn’t there a bit more to 
>> the exceptions process that could be pointed out in the Executive Summary? 
>> Namely, that in the Exceptions piece written by Tim/drafting team there is 
>> support not just for an exceptions procedure [narrowly tailored], but 
>> specifically a focus on the nature of the exceptions to be included. 
>>  
>> In the interest of time, let me crib off directly off the Exceptions 
>> documents, and the questions in the survey, and offer a short addition to 
>> the text:
>> ð  [Executive Summary] Another principle that is moving toward a [consensus] 
>> of the Working Group support is the principle that in the event ICANN adopts 
>> a requirement of strict separation between registrars and registries, an 
>> exceptions procedure should be incorporated into the New GTLD Program [start 
>> addition] based on certain public interest needs where those needs would not 
>> otherwise be addressed, possibly to included “community” TLDs and “orphaned” 
>> TLDs. [end addition]
>>  
>> There was wide support for this, even greater than other exceptions already 
>> noted in the paper.
>>  
>> 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:  kkleiman@xxxxxxx       |  W:  www.pir.org
>>  
>> Visit us online!
>> Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz!
>> Find us on Facebook | dotorg
>> See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr
>> See our video library on YouTube
>>  
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
>> Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If 
>> received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
>>  
>>  
> 
> 
> 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.