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

[Krista Papac <krista.papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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 
consensus.

Krista Papac
Chief Strategy Officer
AusRegistry International
5267 Warner Avenue, Suite 176
Huntington Beach. California. United States. 92649
Ph:  +1 714 846 8780
Fax: +1 323 443 3573
Email: krista.papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:krista.papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Web: www.ausregistry.com

- Follow AusRegistry International on Twitter: 
www.twitter.com/ausregistryint<http://www.twitter.com/ausregistryint>

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 
Robin Gross
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; 
Margie Milam
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Update- Rec6 Action Item URGENT input from CWG is 
required by January 7th 2011.

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<mailto: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<mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>