[PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I am not sure I can accept that it ever went through the PDP process.

avri


On 02-Oct-15 08:50, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> 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> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus