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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Antony,

It suffers from the same problem as SRSU. While there may some general
agreement that something should be done for so-called orphaned TLDs, I
do not believe there has been any general agreement about whether that
is pre or post delegation. In fact the very label of "orphan" may invoke
different ideas of timing in each ones mind. 

I know this is one of your pet peeves, but it is for further debate
as/if the WG continues, not for attempting to resolve in this report.

Tim  
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Executive Summary edit
From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 4:09 pm
To: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "'tim@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'mike@xxxxxxxxxx'"
<mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'"
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>, "'kKleiman@xxxxxxx'"
<kKleiman@xxxxxxx>

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.