[PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
Kathy Kleiman
kathy
Fri Oct 9 22:26:49 EEST 2015
Hi Amr,
I look forward to talking with you about this in Dublin!
Overall, the history of the STI is based on the IRT (a truly
unauthorized group to which we were responding), and the process of
creating the new rules of the URS and STI. NCUC stopped the IRT work
in a huge showdown at the ICANN Sydney meeting - and we said that
ICANN could not move forward with IRT recommendations until the IRT
"recommendations" ran through the GNSO. Otherwise, the IRT work would
have been incorporated into the Applicant Guidebook wholehog.
Konstantinos, Robin, Wendy and I were on the STI Team.
Happy to delve into more histories and past work. Was the PDP in full
form prior to full SGs??
Best and see you soon,
Kathy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Amr Elsadr"
To:
Cc:
Sent:Fri, 9 Oct 2015 21:29:11 +0200
Subject:Re: [PC-NCSG] Arguments Rejected
Hi Kathy,
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I was familiar with
the work of the STI, but had two misperceptions about it that are now
clearer to me:
1. I had thought that the STI only worked on the specifics of the
TMCH, not the URS. Going over the final report of the STI
(http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf),
I now see that I was mistaken about this.
2. I thought the STI was an ad-hoc group created by the ICANN board.
Again, I was wrong about this. It was a (non-PDP) review team
chartered by the GNSO Council.
Still?, I would still say that despite the multistakeholder
representation in the STI, it would not be entirely accurate to say
that URS went through the proper GNSO PDP as outlined in the operating
procedures and ICANN bylaws to develop Consensus Policy (capital C and
P). As far as I can tell, there are clear differences between the two
processes, with the traditional GNSO process allowing for broader
participation than was permitted in the STI, as well as more rounds of
public comments along the process from issue scoping to development of
the final recommendations by the working group.
The process followed by the working group is described in detail in
the STI report, as well as here:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2010/sti.
Thanks.
Amr
PS: If there was no URS today, I don?t believe the URS would be
suitable for the now formal Expedited Policy Development Process
(EPDP). It wouldn?t qualify for this process IMHO, and would need to
go through a traditional PDP.
> On Oct 9, 2015, at 8:35 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>
> 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 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 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Ed,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2015-10-02 0:59 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris >>>>> >:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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://wwwicann.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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151009/016e00d4/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list