<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
re:finding if we are alone in this<br>
<br>
You all would know more than me about this but, aren't PDP's
extensive, time-consuming, highly-political consultations that will
always be regarded as exercises to be avoided if possible,
especially late in a project's development?<br>
<br>
But I do agree about it anyhow, as +50 is so blatantly policy
development.<br>
<br>
re:request, rationale and policy vs implementation<br>
<br>
The rationale hinted at ongoing and widespread internal debates b/w
differing views as to what constitutes policy and what constitutes
implementation.<br>
<br>
Anybody has a solid grasp of the articulated positions on this axis
of debate at present? <br>
<br>
Specifically, I find it hard to categorize the rationale as a non
norm-settling document in this debate.<br>
<br>
Indeed, how could<br>
<br>
i) an aspect (the 50 +) of a project that was discussed extensively
prior to project implementation, as part of policy development (was
it?), and deemed problematic by the community (wouldn't make the
policy consensus at least if I got my facts right); how could such
an aspect be *brought back* and reframed implementation? Are there
any pro-implementation positions on the implementation vs policy
debate that seek to disregard the "was priorly discussed and
rejected as a matter of non-consensual policy" norm intension? it's
not the fact that the CEO admitted to thinking the obvious that
makes it policy, it's the fact that it was always viewed as policy
...<br>
<br>
ii) the 50 + introduction be deemed, objectively, "conservative".
Because it can be undone? Note that this then becomes the test for
implementation vs policy debates, no? <br>
<br>
Lastly, is it so hard to differentiate policy and implementation or,
more to the point, implementations that have policy implications
that renders it effectively policy?<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 04/07/2013 2:47 AM, William Drake
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:27204521-747C-4421-9A72-EBE68C0A9063@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
Hi
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I agree with Marie-Laure and would think pushing this in
Council is a good antecedent step before trying for an IRP,
inter alia as it would de-bilateralize things a bit and force
some clarification of whether, upon reflection, anyone else is
with us. It'd also provide a clear operational plan for Durban,
given that we'll be a bit short handed with respect to pursuing
alternatives. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Jul 4, 2013, at 3:22 AM, marie-laure Lemineur <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:mllemineur@gmail.com">mllemineur@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">Dear all,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Just an idea.....I don´t know if it is a good one
but.....While I was reading the recommendation of the BGC,
and bearing in mind what we discussed yesterday during our
conference call, it struck me that we could follow the BGC
suggestion/idea as quoted p.11 :</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="page" title="Page 11">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<p><span
style="font-size:12.000000pt;font-family:'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">"Third,
the Chair of the GNSO Council’s response that
the previously abusive name issue
is “best addressed as a policy concern” does not
mean that staff has done more than
implementation or that staff has contradicted an
existing policy or process. Instead it actually
confirms the absence of clear Policy from the
GNSO beyond Recommendation 3. The staff
approach was conservative, and there is nothing
that cannot be undone.<b> The GNSO is free to
initiate a Policy Development Process in this
area to recommend a new Policy. If such GNSO
Policy concurs with the current implementation
approach, then there should be no issue. <u>If
an
eventual adopted Policy does not agree with
the current approach, the approach can be
overturned.</u></b><u>"</u></span></p>
<p><font size="3" face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">Request a
new PDP on the matter...</font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">Of
course, this does not exclude that we can also
move forward in parallel and file for an
Independent Review Panel OR we can decide to
choose the new PDP option/strategy and forget
about the Panel Review....</font></p>
<p><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;font-size:medium">Best, </span></p>
<p><span
style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;font-size:medium">Marie-laure</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:32 PM,
Robin Gross <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org" target="_blank">robin@ipjustice.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>ICANN New gtld program committee adopted BGC's
revised rationale dismissing NCSG's request for
reconsideration. We should file for an
Independent Review Panel determination and ask
ICANN and/or the arbitrators to waive our costs,
which are otherwise prohibitive. There is no
accountability "within" ICANN, as this situation
has demonstrated. We need to go outside of ICANN
to get any constraints on ICANN's lawlessness. -
Robin</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2 July 2013 - Resolution Approved by ICANN
Board New GTLD Cmte:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-02jul13-en.htm#1.a"
target="_blank">http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-02jul13-en.htm#1.a</a></div>
<div>
<h4 style="font-family:'Klavika
Basic';font-weight:bold;font-size:1em;margin-top:15px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:8px;margin-left:0px;color:rgb(85,85,85);line-height:21px">Revised
BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request
13-3</h4>
<p
style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:8px;margin-left:0px;line-height:1.45em;color:rgb(85,85,85);font-family:Arial,Heveltica,sans-serif;font-size:15px">Whereas,
the Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group's ("<abbr
title="Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group"
style="border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;border-bottom-color:initial">NCSG</abbr>")
Reconsideration Request, Request 13-3, sought
reconsideration of the staff action of 20 March
2013 regarding "Trademark Claims Protections for
Previously Abused Names".</p>
<p
style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:8px;margin-left:0px;line-height:1.45em;color:rgb(85,85,85);font-family:Arial,Heveltica,sans-serif;font-size:15px">Whereas,
the BGC considered the issues raised in
Reconsideration Request 13-3, as well as the
issues brought to and discussed by the <abbr
title="Generic Names Supporting Organization"
style="border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;border-bottom-color:initial">GNSO</abbr> Council
regarding some of the language in the BGC's
Recommendation.</p>
<p
style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:8px;margin-left:0px;line-height:1.45em;color:rgb(85,85,85);font-family:Arial,Heveltica,sans-serif;font-size:15px">Whereas,
the BGC revoked its initial recommendation, and
issued a Revised BGC Recommendation on
Reconsideration Request 13-3, which ultimately
recommended that no further action was warranted
with respect to Request 13-3.</p>
<p
style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:8px;margin-left:0px;line-height:1.45em;color:rgb(85,85,85);font-family:Arial,Heveltica,sans-serif;font-size:15px">Resolved
(2013.07.02.NG01), the New <abbr title="generic
Top Level Domain"
style="border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;border-bottom-color:initial">gTLD</abbr> Program
Committee adopts the Revised BGC Recommendation
on Reconsideration Request 13-3 <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendation-ncsg-25jun13-en.pdf"
style="outline-style:none;outline-width:initial;outline-color:initial;color:rgb(239,103,62);text-decoration:none"
target="_blank">http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendation-ncsg-25jun13-en.pdf</a>>
[PDF, 142 KB].</p>
<p
style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:8px;margin-left:0px;line-height:1.45em;color:rgb(85,85,85);font-family:Arial,Heveltica,sans-serif;font-size:15px">Resolved
(2013.07.02.NG02), the New <abbr title="generic
Top Level Domain"
style="border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;border-bottom-color:initial">gTLD</abbr> Program
Committee directs <abbr title="Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers"
style="border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;border-bottom-color:initial">ICANN</abbr>'s
President and CEO to assure that the issues
raised within Request 13-3 are brought to the
ongoing community discussion on policy versus
implementation within <abbr title="Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers"
style="border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;border-bottom-color:initial">ICANN</abbr>.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div apple-content-edited="true">
**********************************************************<br>
William J. Drake<br>
International Fellow & Lecturer<br>
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ<br>
University of Zurich, Switzerland<br>
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, <br>
ICANN, <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.ncuc.org">www.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a> <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.williamdrake.org">www.williamdrake.org</a><br>
***********************************************************<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>