[PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi,

I guess if there is consensus, we can work on that. nice timing before
Dublin meeting and within the context of discussion on CCWG :)

Rafik

2015-10-02 23:32 GMT+09:00 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>:

> Let's propose teaming-up with Phil Corwin and the BC and file a
> Reconsideration Request on this process breach.  At least the board will
> have to explain their rationale in writing (or rather Jones Day will write
> it for them and sign their name).  And with two sides usually warring on
> the same side of this issue, it could get more serious consideration than
> the usual rubber stamp denial one gets from ICANN's Recon Requests.  They
> need to explain this, in writing, on the website, where it can be subject
> to scrutiny.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> On Oct 2, 2015, at 1:28 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
>
> 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>:
>
>> 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
>>> 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/20151003/414bf8c5/attachment.html>