Fwd: [soac-mapo] Update- Rec6 Action Item URGENT input from CWG is required by January 7th 2011.

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

sent from wrong address.
plus, i should have removed all the cc anyway since the full group address was 
among the recipients
apologies for my bad netiquette, I usually remember.

a.



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: 3 January 2011 11:08:24 EST
> To: 
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Update- Rec6 Action Item URGENT input from CWG is 
> required by January 7th 2011.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am one of the fence sitters on IO - though I do agree we need to discuss it 
> and suggest changes.
> 
> I tend to support the function, however, think that there should always be 
> someone who is the complainant of record.  I.e. the IO should neither be able 
> to initiate an objection or his or her own nor initiate one for a secret 
> complainant.
> 
> Without this change, I find the IO function unacceptable.  With this change, 
> I think it provides a useful service for those who cannot maneuver the 
> difficult procedures (or cannot/should not have to pay) or like the ALAC or 
> GAC need someone to administer their objection.
> 
> The other issue I have is that if the complainant does not pay, the 
> respondent does not pay.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 3 Jan 2011, at 10:59, Jon Nevett wrote:
> 
>> Robin:
>> 
>> I'm wondering if there are specific proposals that you have in mind related 
>> to IO safeguards that you think might achieve consensus.  It would be great 
>> if you could send them around asap.  I suggest avoiding those that abolish 
>> or significantly gut the IO -- it was clear in Cartagena that there is no 
>> consensus on those.  Also, it would be great if you would take into account 
>> ICANN's comments to Recommendation 10.1 of our report.  
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Jon
>> 
>> On Jan 3, 2011, at 12:26 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>> 
>>> Richard,
>>> 
>>> 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 the community.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> Richard
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Richard
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> IP JUSTICE
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>