Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: Q&A - RyC and JAS WG VERSION 2 - PLEASE REVIEW by Friday May 20

[Alain Berranger <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm a new comer to ICANN and this WG and probably miss a lot of the nuances
and "enjeux"... However, I find Elaine' suggestion to keep the discourse
civil extremely appealing, if not absolutely necessary... (Hence the use of
moderators in other settings).  In other networks I participate in, I find
that self-interest is always in play and that is human nature and OK in my
opinion - the key is to put the common goal ahead of self-interest. Alain

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Elaine Pruis
<elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Why should anyone be asked to "filter out the personal component," rather
> than the entire group be required to keep discourse civil?
>
> I think keeping the discourse civil would go a long way towards unity in
> the cross constituency working group; the level of personal distrust and
> blame is palpable and has caused us to fumble along over 18 months instead
> of concluding our work expeditiously.
>
> Elaine
>
>
> On May 20, 2011, at 8:18 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Michele,
>
> I guess I'll disagree with your disagreement.
>
> While I may not share Eric's writing style (who does?) I extracted out of
> that some perfectly valid observations and comments. I am far more annoyed
> by the legalese, bullying and lack of substance in Jeff's response than by
> Eric's original comments. Both messages were needlessly personal, but only
> contained any content of substance germane to this list.
>
> In this forum and elsewhere, even when I have disagreed with Eric I have
> found his points of view to be well reasoned and based on a depth of
> experience shared by very few in this community. I -- and others here -- are
> fully capable of filtering out the personal component to glean opinions that
> are, to me, valid until refuted.
>
> If I'm being advised "not to take [Eric's] comments into consideration",
> I'll need more justification than was presented. Attempts to shut down
> legitimate debate through vague legal threats may work in other fora but IMO
> are unwelcome here.
>
> - Evan
>
>
> On 19 May 2011 18:53, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight <<michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 19 May 2011, at 21:30, Cintra Sooknanan wrote:
>>
>> > Dear JAS members,
>> >
>> > Just yesterday I endorsed Evan's email encouraging and welcoming
>> participation, but this endorsement was with the understanding that we each
>> bring a different perspective to the table based on our own personal
>> experience and competencies.
>> >
>> > It's impossible and irrational to think that these perspectives will
>> always complement eachother, and when trying to rationalise them into a
>> single view it is obvious to question the underlying principles creating or
>> giving weight to them.
>> >
>> > Even though this is a salient issue, it is undoubtedly important for us
>> to resolve it in moving forward as a unit.
>> >
>> > My interpretation is that, the assertion of where Jeff's comments are
>> coming from is a recognition of his prominent position in the industry.
>> Further, it is difficult for me to comprehend why the comments would be made
>> if he did not assess them for himself given his own expertise and connive or
>> endorse them, this is to our WG's benefit for us appreciate this slant.
>> Failure to speak up on and just blindly forwarding comments without proper
>> thoughtful evaluation does not put our pool of expertise to effective use
>> and hinders the WG's progress.
>> >
>> > During my short time on the drafting team, I have also become accustomed
>> to Eric's style of writing. Therefore I don't see his comments as being
>> stated with any malace and, knowing or reckless disregard of the truth. I
>> also find it a hard stretch to consider the real injury Jeff has been caused
>> by Eric's opinion.
>>
>> I'd have to strongly disagree.
>>
>> Eric's comments were both inflammatory and overly personal with respect to
>> Jeff and existing registry operators.
>>
>> It's not helpful and defending it only validates it
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Michele
>>
>> >
>> > I do hope we can be more flexible and build an environment of open
>> sharing and sound justification of opinions in the future.
>> >
>> > Kind regards
>> >
>> > Cintra
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Neuman, Jeff <<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Eric,
>> >
>> > Although I was the messenger of the RySG statement, I object to the
>> implication that I am behind any or all of the content.  I also strongly
>> object to your comments on what the existing registries have done or what
>> our motivation are.  I caution you and the group not to take these comments
>> into consideration as they are not true and in my opinion are defamatory &
>> slanderous, so please refrain from these types of discussion on the list.
>>  They are not helpful and do not advance all of our interests in making sure
>> that assistance is provided to new gTLD registries who may not otherwise
>> have the ability to apply.
>> >
>> > Jeffrey J. Neuman
>> > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
>> > Please note new address:  21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166
>> >
>> >
>> > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
>> the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or
>> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
>> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination,
>> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
>> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and
>> delete the original message.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: <owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
>> owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:<owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
>> owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams
>> > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 12:48 PM
>> > To: Cintra Sooknanan
>> > Cc: Karla Valente; <SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
>> SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
>> > Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: Q&A - RyC and JAS WG VERSION 2 -
>> PLEASE REVIEW by Friday May 20
>> >
>> >
>> > Cintra, Colleagues,
>> >
>> > I appreciate that the text has been sent to the GNSO Council already.
>> >
>> > In asking "Assuming the fees are reasonable with regard to services
>> > provided to registries, would other registries be expected to make up
>> > the deficit?  Or does the WG believe the fees are too high?  If the
>> > latter, was any analysis done to support that position?", Jeff Neuman
>> > asks us to accept an assumption.
>> >
>> > The unstated assumption is that all registries are the same, that all
>> > are "like" the com/net/org/biz/info business model.
>> >
>> > Jeff doesn't ask us if ICANN has a higher cost, if it doesn't provide
>> > more "services" to problems caused by profit maximizing operators, to
>> > unrolling .biz's illegal sunrise lottery, to stopping .com's wildcard
>> > "registry service", aka "Site Finder", to studying, and finally
>> > stopping domain tasting, aka "AGP abuse", and reviewing the .jobs
>> > breach of its sponsorship, than it provides to .museum, .coop and .cat.
>> >
>> > I don't think we should accept the premise that everything is like
>> > .com (or .biz when Jeff represents the VGRS/Afilias/NeuStar members of
>> > the RySG).
>> >
>> > I think the more factual position is that ICANN has assumed, as a
>> > matter of convenience, a one-size-fits-all model, during a period in
>> > which it has twice experimented with creating both competition among
>> > similar business models (.com, .net competing with .info and .biz, and
>> > the divested .org) and innovative business models (.aero, .coop,
>> > .museum, .cat, .mobi, .tel, .post), and that there is now sufficient
>> > experience to distinguish the costs to policy the original market,
>> > with its profit seeking registry operators and registrars and
>> > resellers and domainers, and the cost to policy the sponsored and
>> > community serving registries, which are not a "market", but the
>> > separate, though similar, social constructs of cooperatives and
>> > communities and similar social entities.
>> >
>> > In the longer-term, the monopoly of the RySG will itself be challenged
>> > by the dis-simularity of interests of .com-clone profit maximizing
>> > registry operators, and registries operated in a public interest.
>> >
>> > For our present, noting what Jeff wants us to assume, to the benefit
>> > of his employer, and his advocacy interests, and those his employer
>> > shares with its market-controlling "competitors", and the advocacy
>> > interests of the those market-controlling "competitors", and declining
>> > to overlook the
>> >
>> > Eric
>> >
>>
>> Mr Michele Neylon
>> Blacknight Solutions
>> Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
>> ICANN Accredited Registrar
>>  <http://www.blacknight.com/>http://www.blacknight.com/
>>  <http://blog.blacknight.com/>http://blog.blacknight.com/
>>  <http://blacknight.mobi/>http://blacknight.mobi/
>>  <http://mneylon.tel>http://mneylon.tel
>> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>> US: 213-233-1612
>> UK: 0844 484 9361
>> Locall: 1850 929 929
>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>> Twitter: <http://twitter.com/mneylon>http://twitter.com/mneylon
>> -------------------------------
>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
>> Park,Sleaty
>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
> Em: evan at telly dot org
> Sk: evanleibovitch
> Tw: el56
>
>


-- 
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
Vice-Chair, GKP Foundation, www.globalknowledgepartnership.org
Vice Chair, Canadian Foundation for the Americas - www.focal.ca
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger