RE: [soac-mapo] Update- Rec6 Action Item URGENT input from CWG is required by January 7th 2011.
- To: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Update- Rec6 Action Item URGENT input from CWG is required by January 7th 2011.
- From: Krista Papac <krista.papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 07:41:53 +1100
I agree with Richard, in that the specific guidance provided by Margie is "that
the Board is seeking a proposal directly from the CWG with regard to the three
specific issues described in the resolution" and therefore we should be focused
on addressing the three specific issues described as:
· "the role of the Board in the objection process"
· "to the incitement to discrimination criterion"
· "the fees for GAC and ALAC-instigated objections"
I understand and appreciate there are a number of members of the CWG who want
to discuss the role of the IO and its associated processes. In my opinion the
Public Comment Forum for the Proposed Final AGB would be the best place to do
this. I am not opposed to discussing the IO items if we have extra time after
we have addressed the three issues specifically requested, but believe if we do
have time the discussion should be focused on items where the CWG can reach
Chief Strategy Officer
5267 Warner Avenue, Suite 176
Huntington Beach. California. United States. 92649
Ph: +1 714 846 8780
Fax: +1 323 443 3573
- Follow AusRegistry International on Twitter:
The information contained in this communication is intended for the named
recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged
and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must
not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have
received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system
and notify us immediately.
From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 9:27 PM
To: Richard Tindal
Cc: Evan Leibovitch; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; soac-mapo; Chuck Gomes; Heather.Dryden
Dryden; Frank March; Van Gelder Stéphane; Jon Nevett; Neuman Jeff; Kurt Pritz;
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Update- Rec6 Action Item URGENT input from CWG is
required by January 7th 2011.
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:
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
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
This issue will not magically just go away through one more deferment.
On 2 January 2011 18:17, Richard Tindal
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: