[PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected

[Kathy Kleiman]

Hi Ed,
If the URS is the Uniform Rapid Suspension, then it is consensus policy. 
It's original version, through the IRT was not (it came from IP 
interests), but then we demanded that it be thrown into the GNSO PDP 
process. It was an expedited process, but one in which all stakeholders 
were actively and aggressively represented. Our team was me, 
Konstantinos, Wendy and Robin.

Others called it an "A Team" and we lived and breathed, fought for and 
won very extensive changes to the URS which are not part of the policy.

But perhaps there is another URS you are thinking of...
Best,
Kathy

:
> Hi Rafik,
>
> The URS is not consensus policy yet is being applied as such via 
> contact. It would appear to me that the only way to tackle this 
> problem would be to request an issues report on the URS use and 
> hopefully have it rejected for use in legacy pdp's. If we ignore this 
> issue and allow ICANN to continue to create de facto consensus 
> policies by contract the role and position of the GNSO as the creator 
> of consensus policies will be severely damaged.
>
> I would appreciate thoughts of others of ways to turn back this staff 
> encroachment on fundamental rights of the GNSO. We could go the 
> Reconsideration / CEP/ IRP route, perhaps in association with others, 
> but until that last costly option I'm not sure we would have a chance 
> of success. An Ombudsman's complaint is also something we could consider.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ed,
>>
>>
>> 2015-10-02 0:59 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net 
>> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>:
>>
>>     Hi Rafik,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     thanks for the work done, wondering how to proceed here. I don't
>>>     recall if there was any support at the public comment period.
>>
>>     Lots. Phil Corwin and the BC actually led the charge on this
>>     issue against the IPC which had the the minority, and winning,
>>     view. It sort of makes one wonder about the public comment process.
>>
>>     We need to request an Issues Report on the URS. It's a bit risky
>>     in that it might legitimize a bad rpm tool but I don't think a
>>     Reconsideration would be worth the effort, although if someone
>>     has the time to do one I'd be happy to help.
>>
>>
>> I thought there is already a report about all RPM 
>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-11-en
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>>>         In other news, the Board chose Panama City as the host of
>>>         next summers ICANN meeting. With the fall meeting in Puerto
>>>         Rico that means our Meetings for next year will be held in
>>>         two locations 1,100 miles from each other. London and
>>>         Dublin, the sites for the next and last European meetings,
>>>         are about 290 miles from each other. That is more diverse
>>>         than our last two Latin American meetings prior to Panama
>>>         City, both of which were held in Buenos Aires. To the extent
>>>         ICANN's Meeting strategy is part of ICANN's global outreach
>>>         strategy I would suggest it needs some work.
>>>
>>>
>>>     well you can 2 times for  Singapore. the last Asian city , which
>>>     is not Singapore, was Beijing in  2013  . in fact it sounds with
>>>     the meetings requirements, it become more harder different
>>>     hosts. again wondering how it will be the new meeting format
>>>     starting in 2016.
>>>
>>
>>     We need to ascertain what is going on here. It can't be
>>     exclusively cost; London and Dublin are expensive  cities. I'll
>>     try to talk to Meetings staff in Dublin and see if I can get some
>>     background to share with everyone. The meetings are large but
>>     they are not the largest and other groups manage to find diverse
>>     locations. I was actually in favor of the Hub city strategy but
>>     if we are using the meetings, as argued, as part of the global
>>     outreach initiative...well, it's a big globe.
>>
>>     Best,
>>
>>     Ed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>     Best,
>>>
>>>     Rafik
>>>
>>>         A complete rundown of the Board's resolutions from
>>>         Monday can be found here:
>>>         https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.f .
>>>
>>>         Best,
>>>
>>>         Ed
>>>
>>>         Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20151002/1aebc553/attachment-0001.html>