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