Re: [soac-mapo] Update- Rec6 Action Item URGENT input from CWG is required by January 7th 2011.
- To: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Update- Rec6 Action Item URGENT input from CWG is required by January 7th 2011.
- From: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 21:26:59 -0800
As you may recall, the group had barely begun discussing the IO when we reached
our deadline so we were not able to complete that discussion. You may also
recall that the way the poll had been hastily set up was to lump all of the IO
recommendations together in a single recommendation such that any disagreement
with any of the individual recommendations would result in a vote against any
changes to the IO at all.
This discussion about how to build safeguards into the IO in order to protect
the public interest and limit opportunity for abuse have been important to a
number of community interests all along and remain unaddressed. While I can
sympathize with the desire to call an end to this implementation discussion in
order to introduce new gtlds as soon as possible, we should not do that if it
means we end up with a bad policy. So far the community has had no opportunity
to shape the IO and build any safeguards into the process. It is no longer an
acceptable answer to continue to push aside these legitimate concerns under the
rug in the interest of expediency.
A number of us want to work on building safeguards into the IO process and we
should not be precluded from having that discussion and input to the board. If
this group doesn't address those implementation proposals that concern us most,
I'm not sure what it is set up for - and what kind of support can be expected
for a report that refused to address the major concerns of a number sectors of
On Jan 2, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:
> Evan/ Robin,
> We've had a fair and lengthy airing of the views related to the IO but the
> CWG didn't reach consensus on these. We listed "divergence" as the level of
> support for the proposed IO recommendation (Recommendation 10.1). I don't
> think this requires clarification from the group.
> Is there some reason to believe we would now achieve consensus on this issue?
> If so, I would be happy to discuss it, but it didn't sound that way from our
> meeting in Cartagena. ICANN is accepting public comments for another two
> weeks on the PFAG and that probably would be more appropriate vehicle to
> raise such concerns.
> I think our task this week is to address the specific items in the Board
> resolution, but I welcome the views of others in the group.
> On Jan 2, 2011, at 5:51 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>> I disagree thoroughly. The IO is integral to many of the objections to the
>> status quo. Glossing over them at this point does not address such this
>> fundamental problem and leaves it to fester.
>> Part of the reason we are here, dealing with this core issue so late in the
>> TLD process, is because of previous tendencies to sweep contentious issues
>> under the rug in the name of expediency, hoping that in the future they'll
>> be forgotten or just bullied past. I prefer to learn from mistakes rather
>> than repeat them.
>> This issue will not magically just go away through one more deferment.
>> - Evan
>> On 2 January 2011 18:17, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> I think our current mission is to address the three items in the Board's
>> Cartagena resolution (per Margie's 24 Dec note).
>> IO wasn't one of them, so I propose we leave any revisiting of that issue to
>> the end of our discussions.
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx