[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