[PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected

Amr Elsadr aelsadr
Fri Oct 9 21:44:24 EEST 2015


Hi,

Apologies for not responding to this sooner, but to the extent of my understanding (which may very well be lacking), I agree with Avri. I have no knowledge of the URS ever going through the GNSO?s PDP.

There is a summary of the chronological development of the URS over 2012/2013 here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs. This may be missing some details, but I am generally unfamiliar with a GNSO PDP discussing the URS, or any GNSO Council motion recommending that the ICANN board adopt the URS for new or legacy gTLDs.

If there was a GNSO process that discussed this, can somebody please point me in the right direction?

Thanks.

Amr

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg





More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list