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

[Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Jon.  Yes, I'd be glad to offer some proposals to further this 
discussion along.  

One key principle that should be part of the IO process is transparency.  It is 
important that those who wish to prevent a tld from being created should be 
known.  A number of us were troubled by the comment on the call from Caroll 
that the IO was intended to allow for secret objections.  Such an IO would be 
ripe for insider lobbying to secretly try to nuke a tld.  Since ICANN holds 
transparency out as one of its core values, we should endeavor to build 
transparency into the gtld process as well.   Without transparency, there can 
be no accountability, so it is important to know just who is preventing the 
creation of tlds.   

Another key component to this is accountability: there should be at least one 
party who is claiming to be harmed by the creation of a tld before an IO can 
try to kill it.  Without anyone who is willing to say the proposed tld will 
harm them in some way, a layer of accountability is removed from the IO 
process.   An IO should facilitate legitimate objections, not create objections 
entirely on its own that cannot be traced back to a party who alleges it will 
be harmed by the creation of tld.   These suggestions do not abolish or gut an 
IO - they are just intended as safeguards to prevent gaming and insure 
accountability and transparency in ICANN processes.

Thanks,
Robin

On Jan 3, 2011, at 7:59 AM, 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 




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