<html>
<body>
Jeff, well said.<br><br>
For the record, your quote was if not verbatim, pretty close. It
was meant to be humorous, but was intended to reflect what has been going
on at times, in my opinion.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 29/11/2012 09:55 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">All,<br>
<br>
We have a very serious problem here that needs immediate attention.
I am not referring to the merits of whether any of these organizations
deserve protection or not, or whether there should be additional
safeguards for IP owners in the new gTLD process or whether certain Whois
Review team recommendations could be put into place . Forget all of
that. Forget the merits and substance of these important
issues.<br>
<br>
The real issue is that new reliance on the terms “policy” vs.
“implementation.” This is the issue that should receive top
priority. To quote Alan Greenberg (or at least paraphrase), when
one group wants something in place without using the policy process, they
call it “implementation.” Those that oppose it, call it
“policy.” While that statement was made several times by Alan
partly in jest, that statement does have merit.<br>
<br>
Lets look at the following 3 examples:<br>
<br>
1. <u> IOC/RC</u> – As the letter
sent around by Jonathan shows, the GAC is thoroughly annoyed with the
GNSO for starting a policy process on the protection of IOC and Red Cross
marks. They believe (although unstated), that they have exclusive
jurisdiction over these types of public policy issues and do not want the
GNSO to take “years” to work out whether these organizations (which they
believe are protected by law) should receive protections in the new gTLD
process. Without commenting on the merits of this argument, look at
what they have done. They have called the protections as nothing
more than “implementation” and therefore, the GNSO should explain itself
as to why we believe we have a right to start a policy process on
it. After all, implementation can just be enacted by the
Board. There is no need for the GNSO to get involved, in their
view…nor do they want it.<br>
<br>
2. <u>Whois Review Team</u>:
The ICANN Board sought guidance from the entire Internet community on
whether the recommendations involved “implementation” or “policy”.
Why? Because if it is implementation, there is no need to involve the
GNSO community and it can just be enacted. Those that supported the
recommendations wholeheartedly called them “implementation.” Those
that opposed the recommendations called it “policy.” I believe that
many who called it policy actually truly believe there are policy issues
involved, but some called it policy, to have it go through the long drawn
out process we call a PDP (with the hopes that it dies a slow
death). Neither side of this debate is blameless.<br>
<br>
3. <u>The now infamous New gTLD
“straw-man”</u>: For the record, I was a part of the group that
discussed the straw man in Brussels and LA over the past few weeks.
I found those discussions very useful and appreciate the efforts being
made by the new ICANN CEO, who I have a tremendous amount of respect
for. I believe he truly will make a huge positive impact on ICANN
for many years to come. But, now the debate has turned into what is
policy and what is implementation. The IPC/BC and their
representatives have called all of their proposals
“implementation”. The NCSG, Registries, Registrars and
Applicants have called much of it policy. ICANN staff has now
weighed in on their thoughts and have classified certain items as
implementation (thereby negating the need for GNSO policy development),
and other items as policy, thereby requiring extensive involvement from
the GNSO community – note I did NOT say necessarily PDP).<br>
<br>
I believe we all need to take a step back from the issues
<u>immediately</u> and decide once and for all an agreed upon bottom-up
multi-stakeholder definition of what is “policy” and what is
“implementation.” Or at the very least a framework for making that
assessment when issues arise. I would advocate for a cross
community group made up of members from ICANN staff, the GNSO, the GAC
and others to come together to figure this issue out, so that we get out
of this rut we are now in. At the same time, we need to fix the
image of the GNSO policy processes so that they are no longer feared, but
embraced. They need to not be used as vehicles for delay, but
rather utilized for the common good.<br>
<br>
If we are able to do this, I believe many of the issues we are now having
will become easier to resolve (and we can focus on the merits). If
not, I see these issues getting much worse over the coming
months/years. I believe the future of the GNSO, and even the
multi-stakeholder model in general hinge on the definition of these 2
words.<br>
<br>
I would be very happy to volunteer to serve on such a group.<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Jeffrey J. Neuman <br>
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs</b><br><br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Jonathan
Robinson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:00 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> council@gnso.icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC
Protections<br>
<br>
All,<br>
<br>
FYI. Please see the attached letter received from the GAC last
night my time.<br>
<br>
Jonathan<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> GAC Secretariat
[<a href="mailto:gacsec@gac.icann.org">mailto:gacsec@gac.icann.org</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 28 November 2012 21:38<br>
<b>To:</b>
<a href="mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com">
jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade; Heather Dryden; Maria Häll;
<a href="mailto:alice@apc.org">alice@apc.org</a>; Choon Sai LIM
(IDA)<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections<br>
<br>
Sent on behalf of Heather Dryden, GAC Chair <br>
<br>
Dear Jonathan, <br>
<br>
Attached please find a letter from the GAC regarding IOC and Red
Cross/Red Crescent protections. <br>
<br>
Best regards, <br>
<br>
Jeannie Ellers <br>
<br>
Jeannie Ellers<br>
Manager, GAC Coordination<br>
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers<br>
1101 New York Avenue NW, Suite 930<br>
Washington, DC 20005<br>
Ph. +1 202 570 7135<br>
M. +1 310 302 7552</blockquote></body>
</html>