[PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
Kathy Kleiman
kathy
Fri Oct 9 21:35:42 EEST 2015
Hi Amr and All,
It did. It went through what would be considered an expedited process,
with all constituencies represented. It was approved unanimously by the
GNSO Council, under Chairman Chuck Gomes who wrote about the immense
hard work that the GNSO STI devoted to this process. It was sent to the
Board and approved.
I'm out of the office right now, so no references, but it was part of
the consensus policies approved for the New gTLDs.... it was pre-NCSG
and NCUC stopped the IRT on this issue and sent it back to consensus
policies as they existed at the time.
Best,
Kathy:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list