From wjdrake at gmail.com Thu Oct 1 06:07:30 2015 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 08:07:30 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: Hi Thanks for the textual exegesis. I?m ok with food for thought, although I suspect it may lead to indigestion. But sorry to be dense, having missed the call I?m not clear how we are proceeding with respect to the statement on 23, on which we put in time through an iterative process but then got some dissent. Could someone give me a step by step here on whether we are hoping for some further process that will lead to consensus, or are instead submitting it just on behalf of the like minded, or what? Thanks Bill > On Sep 30, 2015, at 9:15 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Thank you very much Sam. That answers my questions and I believe that the Working Party is on the same page as the NPOC. > > Chuck > > From: Sam Lanfranco [mailto:sam at lanfranco.net ] > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 3:06 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck; Rudi Vansnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Cc: Excom NPOC > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. > > As part of the NPOC ExCom I will respond to Chuck's query with regard to the NPOC statement on the Westlake final GNSO review report. > > I will relay the sense of our position here, but Rudi and others may wish to add more. > NPOC is not suggesting that the GNSO Review be started over, and it of course supports the Working Party process. > > As a contributor to the phrasing in the document, here is my perspective on the challenges that are ahead for this process. There is a general feeling that the well meaning Westlake people failed to understand much about ICANN and the context in which the GNSO operates, and that this impacted on how they arrived at their recommendations. As a result I would suggest that the Report be treated like yet another submission with regard to the GNSO (albeit an expensive one with some identified flaws in methods used), and that the Report be used as food for thought. > > Working Party implementation guidelines should be based on the importance of issues in their own right and not just because they were flagged by the Report. As well, being listed in the report can bring issues to our attention but in and of itself should not justify their inclusion in implementation guidelines. In my view, to protect the interests of C's and SGs we have to guard against any top down push to use select parts of the Report. I of course support the process whereby suggestions made by the Working Party are considered by the broader GNSO community, and do see that as "bottom-up". > > Sam L, Chair > NPOC Policy Committee > > On 30/09/2015 1:49 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > Rudi, > > Let me add my thanks to that from others for a thoughtful statement. I do have a few questions though. > > More clarity in terms of what the NPOC means in terms of the following would be helpful: ?return the Review of the GNSO to a bottom up stakeholder decision making process?. My understanding is that the Working Party will now review the recommendations with the goal of suggesting some implementation guidelines to the GNSO as a whole. Because the Working Party is fully open and representation is encouraged from all C?s and SGs and others and because any suggestions we make will be considered by the broader GNSO community, would the NPOC consider that process to be ?a bottom up stakeholder decision making process?? Or is the NPOC suggesting that the GNSO Review be started over? > > There are other options of course rather than using the Working Party. An Implementation Review Team could be formed along the lines of what happens for policy issues. > > I asked these questions of you but I realize that they are really for all of us in the Working Party to consider as we evaluate our next steps. > > Chuck > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ] On Behalf Of Rudi Vansnick > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 11:32 AM > To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Cc: Excom NPOC > Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. > > Dear GNSO review party members, > > NPOC has reviewed the Westlake Governance's Final GNSO Review Report and submits the following comments and observations. > > First, we wish to set the context for these comments. NPOC consists of and represents non-profit and civil society constituency organizations. NPOC strives to encompass and represent the interests and concerns of that vast constituency of organizations for whom the Internet ecosystem and DNS operational concerns impact on their mission and their work, but for whom their mission and work focus on community development, social justice, human services, etc., and not on the Internet per se. > > NPOC sees outreach to the constituency to raise awareness and engagement as central to its mission, and as important as bringing constituency organizations into ICANN volunteer work and ICANN policy development and implementation. For a multistakeholder organization to survive and thrive there is need for broad and deep constituency engagement. > > In NPOC?s review of the Final GNSO Review Report two specific issues stand out. > The first concern, shared with other constituencies, is that the methods used to gather and analyze evidence in the report have serious shortcomings. > The second is that a number of the conclusions and recommendations lack appreciation of the context within ICANN, lack an adequate evidence base, and are under defined for purposes of implementation. > However, NPOC does not wish to address specific issues within the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Report. To do so would overlook the broader issue of methods used. It also risks offering validation of Report content where validation is not warranted. > > NPOC has larger concerns with regard to the potential uses of the Report. NPOC would have no issue with the Final GNSO Review Report being treated as a "green paper" and food for thought within the ICANN multistakeholder community. NPOC would have serious reservations about the report being used as "expert" justification for top-down ICANN Board action with regard to the GNSO. That would be an abuse of the ways in which expertise should be incorporated into decision making in what should be a bottom up multistakeholder decision making process. > > In short, NPOC calls for the Board to treat the Westlake Final GNSO Review Report as food for thought and return the Review of the GNSO to a bottom up stakeholder decision making process. Such a process may take longer, and be a bit less orderly, but it will have greater legitimacy within ICANN?s remit as a multistakeholder organization and produce better results in the long run. > > Rudi Vansnick > Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) > www.npoc.org > > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------ > "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured > in an unjust state" -Confucius > ------------------------------------------------ > Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) > Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 > email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco > blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com > Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 ********************************************************* William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q ********************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Thu Oct 1 08:28:29 2015 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 08:28:29 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Attendance list and mp3 GNSO Review WP 30 September 2015 at 18:00 UTC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Please find attendance and mp3 mp3 below for the GNSO Review WP call held on Wednesday, 30 September 2015 at 18:00 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-30sep15-en.mp3 Attendance: Avri Doria Chuck Gomes David Maher Jeff Neuman Jen Wolfe Klaus Stoll Stephanie Perrin Rudi Vansnick Apologies: Amr Elsadr Bill Drake Staff: Larisa Gurnick, Charla Shambley Terri Agnew Nathalie Peregrine Thanks! Nathalie AC Chat: Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, Welcome to the GNSO Review Working Party on the 30 September 2015 Chuck Gomes:I like the odds of RySG influence on this call! :) Avri Doria:hmmm Klaus Stoll:Rudi will join the call in a minute Klaus Stoll:You can ask him,. Avri Doria:makes sense to me Klaus Stoll:I have technical problems to talk, sorry about that Nathalie Peregrine:Stephanie Perrin has joined the call Stephanie Perrin:Apologies for being late Nathalie Peregrine:Rudi Vansnick has joined the call Nathalie Peregrine:URL of the document showing: https://community.icann.org/x/SptYAw Rudi Vansnick:sorry had to run away from another meeting to join this one Larisa Gurnick:https://community.icann.org/x/SptYAw Larisa Gurnick:here is the link to the wiki Larisa Gurnick:We can add another column to capture Chuck's point Marika Konings:It would also be necessary to document outreach strategies (in order to measure) Chuck Gomes:@ Stephanie: Should we change it to hard? Rudi Vansnick:agree with Stephanie Marika Konings:The WG focuses on metrics for policy development Stephanie Perrin:Maybe ....I dont think it would be easy Klaus Stoll:We need do determine how we define outreach Rudi Vansnick:some work is alreadygoing on in some constituencies on the level if messuring outreach resutls Stephanie Perrin:Yes I dont think this is a priority for this group Klaus Stoll:Are we talk out corporate ICANN centered outreach or are we talking about community centered outreach Rudi Vansnick:ok with community centered Rudi Vansnick:still we are quite different groups in the GNSO Klaus Stoll:I just wanted to be clear, Thanks Larisa Gurnick:Let me confirm what section 5.4.5 is. Possibly, the numbering was changed by Westlake Stephanie Perrin:If we could simply measure the new folks on the PDPs (simple count, comparison year to year) we would get useful stats onpotential burnout. At the risk of sounding like I am totally focused on worker bees Rudi Vansnick:it thought it was about having more new participants in WG Klaus Stoll:To get more participants into WG's you need to do awareness and capacity building first Stephanie Perrin:True but we have lots of folks who have joined but are not engaged. Klaus Stoll:Relevance to those who have joined is also a important factor Rudi Vansnick:@Chuck : the participants in WG are normally coming from the consitutencies Rudi Vansnick:so i would consider the efforts should go to them Klaus Stoll:Again, you need to do more awareness and capacity building through the constituencies first Klaus Stoll:Hard Rudi Vansnick:medium Rudi Vansnick:depending on what budget ICANN wants to allocate Rudi Vansnick:not really Stephanie Perrin:There is always a limited budget Larisa Gurnick:Work currently underway, as defined by staff - GNSO Newcomers Webinar, GNSO Learn, Community Travel Support, WG online sign-up tool, enhancing volunteers (SO/AC initiative) Rudi Vansnick:yes Marika Konings:Per Larisa's note, it would be worth to first evaluate what is in place to be able to determine what changes / improvements can be made Rudi Vansnick:let's not forget there are also a lot of other non PDP WG's that needs volunteers Marika Konings:It also links to recommendation 1 as you will need to be able to measure participation / # of newcomers Stephanie Perrin:getting more worker bees seems to me to be a top priority Rudi Vansnick:@Stephanie: +1 Stephanie Perrin:true, and if we do qualtitative research on (for instance) the fellows who stay and go on to play active roles, that might be more useful than metrics per se. Stephanie Perrin:that was in response to Marika Stephanie Perrin:I think you could ask folks to rank them.... Larisa Gurnick:Agreed - not a scientific study, simply a container to aggreate people's views Larisa Gurnick:How much time would you suggest be allocated to this survey of the WP members? Larisa Gurnick:Reminder - Doodle poll is still open to assist with scheduling the Dublin meeting. Please respond, if you have not done so already Charla Shambley:Link to the doodle poll: http://doodle.com/poll/zcigurdm653cwyvv#table Rudi Vansnick:@Larisa: so many meetings and not yet having a clear finalised Dublin schedule it is not easy to figure out Rudi Vansnick:done my poll ;) Larisa Gurnick:@Rudi, I realize that. We are proposing all breakfast meetings, hoping that it may be easier to work into your schedules. Stephanie Perrin:sorry I had to step away for a moment Rudi Vansnick:on Tuesday morning NCSG is presenting to Fellows in the morning Stephanie Perrin:Please dont put it on top of the Women's DNS breakfast Avri Doria:if the OEC is rejecting the recommendation, why are we dealing with it. Avri Doria:are we trying to reinstate it? Stephanie Perrin:Whether or not the idea has merit, the process is not acceptable. Rudi Vansnick:so max 2 weeks Rudi Vansnick:no objection Stephanie Perrin:People are extremely busy at the moment....but if it is easy enough we can do it in 2 weeks Stephanie Perrin:+1 Chuck Rudi Vansnick:no comments fields Rudi Vansnick:good idea Larisa Rudi Vansnick:very good to hear Stephanie Perrin:thanks everyone Larisa Gurnick:thank you all Chuck Gomes:Thanks Jen & all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Thu Oct 1 11:06:20 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 11:06:20 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Bill, I think it is still somewhat up in the error. I suggested in our call yesterday that we could use some time talking about a possible statement but everyone else seemed to want to wait because the OEC gave us more time. Chuck From: William Drake [mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 2:07 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Sam Lanfranco; Rudi Vansnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Excom NPOC Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. Hi Thanks for the textual exegesis. I?m ok with food for thought, although I suspect it may lead to indigestion. But sorry to be dense, having missed the call I?m not clear how we are proceeding with respect to the statement on 23, on which we put in time through an iterative process but then got some dissent. Could someone give me a step by step here on whether we are hoping for some further process that will lead to consensus, or are instead submitting it just on behalf of the like minded, or what? Thanks Bill On Sep 30, 2015, at 9:15 PM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: Thank you very much Sam. That answers my questions and I believe that the Working Party is on the same page as the NPOC. Chuck From: Sam Lanfranco [mailto:sam at lanfranco.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 3:06 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Rudi Vansnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Excom NPOC Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. As part of the NPOC ExCom I will respond to Chuck's query with regard to the NPOC statement on the Westlake final GNSO review report. I will relay the sense of our position here, but Rudi and others may wish to add more. NPOC is not suggesting that the GNSO Review be started over, and it of course supports the Working Party process. As a contributor to the phrasing in the document, here is my perspective on the challenges that are ahead for this process. There is a general feeling that the well meaning Westlake people failed to understand much about ICANN and the context in which the GNSO operates, and that this impacted on how they arrived at their recommendations. As a result I would suggest that the Report be treated like yet another submission with regard to the GNSO (albeit an expensive one with some identified flaws in methods used), and that the Report be used as food for thought. Working Party implementation guidelines should be based on the importance of issues in their own right and not just because they were flagged by the Report. As well, being listed in the report can bring issues to our attention but in and of itself should not justify their inclusion in implementation guidelines. In my view, to protect the interests of C's and SGs we have to guard against any top down push to use select parts of the Report. I of course support the process whereby suggestions made by the Working Party are considered by the broader GNSO community, and do see that as "bottom-up". Sam L, Chair NPOC Policy Committee On 30/09/2015 1:49 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Rudi, Let me add my thanks to that from others for a thoughtful statement. I do have a few questions though. More clarity in terms of what the NPOC means in terms of the following would be helpful: ?return the Review of the GNSO to a bottom up stakeholder decision making process?. My understanding is that the Working Party will now review the recommendations with the goal of suggesting some implementation guidelines to the GNSO as a whole. Because the Working Party is fully open and representation is encouraged from all C?s and SGs and others and because any suggestions we make will be considered by the broader GNSO community, would the NPOC consider that process to be ?a bottom up stakeholder decision making process?? Or is the NPOC suggesting that the GNSO Review be started over? There are other options of course rather than using the Working Party. An Implementation Review Team could be formed along the lines of what happens for policy issues. I asked these questions of you but I realize that they are really for all of us in the Working Party to consider as we evaluate our next steps. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Rudi Vansnick Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 11:32 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Excom NPOC Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. Dear GNSO review party members, NPOC has reviewed the Westlake Governance's Final GNSO Review Report and submits the following comments and observations. First, we wish to set the context for these comments. NPOC consists of and represents non-profit and civil society constituency organizations. NPOC strives to encompass and represent the interests and concerns of that vast constituency of organizations for whom the Internet ecosystem and DNS operational concerns impact on their mission and their work, but for whom their mission and work focus on community development, social justice, human services, etc., and not on the Internet per se. NPOC sees outreach to the constituency to raise awareness and engagement as central to its mission, and as important as bringing constituency organizations into ICANN volunteer work and ICANN policy development and implementation. For a multistakeholder organization to survive and thrive there is need for broad and deep constituency engagement. In NPOC?s review of the Final GNSO Review Report two specific issues stand out. * The first concern, shared with other constituencies, is that the methods used to gather and analyze evidence in the report have serious shortcomings. * The second is that a number of the conclusions and recommendations lack appreciation of the context within ICANN, lack an adequate evidence base, and are under defined for purposes of implementation. However, NPOC does not wish to address specific issues within the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Report. To do so would overlook the broader issue of methods used. It also risks offering validation of Report content where validation is not warranted. NPOC has larger concerns with regard to the potential uses of the Report. NPOC would have no issue with the Final GNSO Review Report being treated as a "green paper" and food for thought within the ICANN multistakeholder community. NPOC would have serious reservations about the report being used as "expert" justification for top-down ICANN Board action with regard to the GNSO. That would be an abuse of the ways in which expertise should be incorporated into decision making in what should be a bottom up multistakeholder decision making process. In short, NPOC calls for the Board to treat the Westlake Final GNSO Review Report as food for thought and return the Review of the GNSO to a bottom up stakeholder decision making process. Such a process may take longer, and be a bit less orderly, but it will have greater legitimacy within ICANN?s remit as a multistakeholder organization and produce better results in the long run. Rudi Vansnick Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) www.npoc.org rudi.vansnick at npoc.org Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 ********************************************************* William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q ********************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From charla.shambley at icann.org Fri Oct 2 23:24:30 2015 From: charla.shambley at icann.org (Charla Shambley) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 23:24:30 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Survey and Dublin Session Message-ID: <9fd7cd9a47744bfabdaae51627f51dfd@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear GNSO Review Working Party Members -- Following up to Wednesday's Working Party call, I bring your attention to the following: 1. SURVEY: In response to a suggestion at the last meeting, a survey has been set up to assist the Working Party to formulate feedback and feasibility assessment on the 36 recommendations in Westlake's Final Report. The compiled results will be used as a tool to assist the Working Party in determining prioritization of the recommendations. The survey is intended for the GNSO Review Working Party members and will remain open through 23:59 UTC, Saturday, 17 October 2015 - please complete it at your earliest convenience. 2. DUBLIN: Based on the doodle poll, your working session in Dublin has been scheduled for Monday, 19 October from 7:00-8:15 am UTC (breakfast will be provided). The Dublin meeting will be used to review the results of the survey, to discuss next steps toward prioritization and implementation, and to finalize the comment regarding recommendation 23. A calendar invite will be sent shortly. 3. WIKI UPDATES: If you missed Wednesday's call, please see the wiki for links to the mp3 recording, transcript, and chat pod. Enjoy your weekend and please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-745-1943 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Fri Oct 2 23:40:46 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 23:40:46 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review Survey and Dublin Session In-Reply-To: <9fd7cd9a47744bfabdaae51627f51dfd@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <9fd7cd9a47744bfabdaae51627f51dfd@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496E6973@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Thanks for producing the survey so quickly Charla. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Charla Shambley Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 7:25 PM To: 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' Cc: 'gnso-secs at icann.org' Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Survey and Dublin Session Dear GNSO Review Working Party Members -- Following up to Wednesday's Working Party call, I bring your attention to the following: 1. SURVEY: In response to a suggestion at the last meeting, a survey has been set up to assist the Working Party to formulate feedback and feasibility assessment on the 36 recommendations in Westlake's Final Report. The compiled results will be used as a tool to assist the Working Party in determining prioritization of the recommendations. The survey is intended for the GNSO Review Working Party members and will remain open through 23:59 UTC, Saturday, 17 October 2015 - please complete it at your earliest convenience. 2. DUBLIN: Based on the doodle poll, your working session in Dublin has been scheduled for Monday, 19 October from 7:00-8:15 am UTC (breakfast will be provided). The Dublin meeting will be used to review the results of the survey, to discuss next steps toward prioritization and implementation, and to finalize the comment regarding recommendation 23. A calendar invite will be sent shortly. 3. WIKI UPDATES: If you missed Wednesday's call, please see the wiki for links to the mp3 recording, transcript, and chat pod. Enjoy your weekend and please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-745-1943 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Tue Oct 6 00:16:16 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 00:16:16 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review Survey and Dublin Session In-Reply-To: <9fd7cd9a47744bfabdaae51627f51dfd@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <9fd7cd9a47744bfabdaae51627f51dfd@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496EA315@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> All, It took me about one hour to complete the survey. I found it pretty easy to complete. I encourage everyone to complete it because I think the more responses we have to summarize the easier it will be for us discuss the recommendations to make implementation suggestions. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Charla Shambley Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 7:25 PM To: 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' Cc: 'gnso-secs at icann.org' Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Survey and Dublin Session Dear GNSO Review Working Party Members -- Following up to Wednesday's Working Party call, I bring your attention to the following: 1. SURVEY: In response to a suggestion at the last meeting, a survey has been set up to assist the Working Party to formulate feedback and feasibility assessment on the 36 recommendations in Westlake's Final Report. The compiled results will be used as a tool to assist the Working Party in determining prioritization of the recommendations. The survey is intended for the GNSO Review Working Party members and will remain open through 23:59 UTC, Saturday, 17 October 2015 - please complete it at your earliest convenience. 2. DUBLIN: Based on the doodle poll, your working session in Dublin has been scheduled for Monday, 19 October from 7:00-8:15 am UTC (breakfast will be provided). The Dublin meeting will be used to review the results of the survey, to discuss next steps toward prioritization and implementation, and to finalize the comment regarding recommendation 23. A calendar invite will be sent shortly. 3. WIKI UPDATES: If you missed Wednesday's call, please see the wiki for links to the mp3 recording, transcript, and chat pod. Enjoy your weekend and please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-745-1943 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From charla.shambley at icann.org Tue Oct 6 00:24:09 2015 From: charla.shambley at icann.org (Charla Shambley) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 00:24:09 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Working Party Session Message-ID: <12e6ce2dc2fb4bb6ae7979cdad883308@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> More details to follow. Breakfast to be included so please rsvp with an "accept" to this appointment so I can get an accurate headcount. Agenda: * Review the results of the survey (the survey will be open through 23:59 UTC, Saturday, 17 October 2015) * Discuss next steps toward prioritization and implementation * Finalize the comment regarding recommendation 23 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 1946 bytes Desc: not available URL: From charla.shambley at icann.org Tue Oct 6 00:32:30 2015 From: charla.shambley at icann.org (Charla Shambley) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 00:32:30 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review Survey and Dublin Session In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496EA315@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <9fd7cd9a47744bfabdaae51627f51dfd@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496EA315@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <47daae724cb74968b739c3976999f5bf@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Thank you for the feedback, Chuck. So far we have three responses to the survey which took the responders between half an hour to one hour to complete. Just a reminder that if you cannot complete the survey you may save your progress and finish it at another time. You may edit your responses until the last page of this survey is completed up to 23:59 UTC, Saturday, 17 October 2015. You should have received an invitation from me for your working session in Dublin, scheduled on Monday, 19 October @ 7:00-8:15 GMT. If you are able to attend, please "accept" the invitation so that I can get an accurate headcount for breakfast. Thank you in advance! Charla From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 5:16 PM To: Charla Shambley ; 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' Cc: 'gnso-secs at icann.org' Subject: RE: GNSO Review Survey and Dublin Session All, It took me about one hour to complete the survey. I found it pretty easy to complete. I encourage everyone to complete it because I think the more responses we have to summarize the easier it will be for us discuss the recommendations to make implementation suggestions. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Charla Shambley Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 7:25 PM To: 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' Cc: 'gnso-secs at icann.org' Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Survey and Dublin Session Dear GNSO Review Working Party Members -- Following up to Wednesday's Working Party call, I bring your attention to the following: 1. SURVEY: In response to a suggestion at the last meeting, a survey has been set up to assist the Working Party to formulate feedback and feasibility assessment on the 36 recommendations in Westlake's Final Report. The compiled results will be used as a tool to assist the Working Party in determining prioritization of the recommendations. The survey is intended for the GNSO Review Working Party members and will remain open through 23:59 UTC, Saturday, 17 October 2015 - please complete it at your earliest convenience. 2. DUBLIN: Based on the doodle poll, your working session in Dublin has been scheduled for Monday, 19 October from 7:00-8:15 am UTC (breakfast will be provided). The Dublin meeting will be used to review the results of the survey, to discuss next steps toward prioritization and implementation, and to finalize the comment regarding recommendation 23. A calendar invite will be sent shortly. 3. WIKI UPDATES: If you missed Wednesday's call, please see the wiki for links to the mp3 recording, transcript, and chat pod. Enjoy your weekend and please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-745-1943 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue Oct 6 00:30:43 2015 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:30:43 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Working Party Session In-Reply-To: <12e6ce2dc2fb4bb6ae7979cdad883308@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <12e6ce2dc2fb4bb6ae7979cdad883308@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <56131633.8040605@mail.utoronto.ca> Um....I know we are dedicated and all that, but it will take more than breakfast to get me there at 2:00am Charla...or am I mis-reading this? Steph On 2015-10-05 20:24, Charla Shambley wrote: > > Event Invitation > > Title: > > > > GNSO Review - Working Party Session > > Location: > > > > Dublin - Room TBD > > When: > > > > October 19, 2015 2:00 ? 3:15 > > > > > Organizer: > > > > Charla Shambley > > Description: > > > > More details to follow. Breakfast to be included so please rsvp with > an ?accept? to this appointment so I can get an accurate headcount. > Agenda: ? Review the results of the > survey (the survey will be > open through 23:59 UTC, Saturday, 17 October 2015) ? Discuss next > steps toward prioritization and implementation ? Finalize the comment > regarding recommendation 23 > > Comment: > > > > Attendees: > > > > > 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwolfe at wolfedomain.com Tue Oct 6 12:33:10 2015 From: jwolfe at wolfedomain.com (Jen Wolfe) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 12:33:10 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Working Party Session In-Reply-To: <56131633.8040605@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <12e6ce2dc2fb4bb6ae7979cdad883308@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <56131633.8040605@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: HI Stephanie & the GNSO Review Team, It will be at 7 a.m. local time. I know that?s early, but please do try to attend as we need your participation to be effective. Also, to follow up to Chuck?s response, it took me about 45 minutes to complete the survey. If you can please carve out the time, your feedback will help us get an understanding as to what the members of the Working Party think about the recommendations. This will help us prioritize which recommendations may have wide-spread agreement and which ones need more consideration or we should recommend that do not proceed. The OEC is looking to us to provide feedback before making its decision as to what to do with the report so your input is incredibly valuable. This is the opportunity for the community to speak out and provide our perspective on the recommendations. I found as I read through the recommendations again on the survey that some seemed like generally good ideas, but might need a bit more refinement whereas others were overly broad and would need a lot more refinement or clarification. We have the ability to separate these recommendations out and provide our feedback to the OEC so I encourage you to please carve out the time between now and Dublin. I am looking forward to seeing you all in Dublin! Jen jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm 513.746.2800 x 1 or Cell 513.238.4348 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011-2014 What will you do with your Dot Brand? : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel on Brand gTLDs http://ow.ly/Eblgc Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column http://ow.ly/EbljP Linked In Group: gTLD Strategy for Brands http://ow.ly/EbloM From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 8:31 PM To: Charla Shambley ; 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Working Party Session Um....I know we are dedicated and all that, but it will take more than breakfast to get me there at 2:00am Charla...or am I mis-reading this? Steph On 2015-10-05 20:24, Charla Shambley wrote: Event Invitation Title: GNSO Review - Working Party Session Location: Dublin - Room TBD When: October 19, 2015 2:00 ? 3:15 Organizer: Charla Shambley Description: More details to follow. Breakfast to be included so please rsvp with an ?accept? to this appointment so I can get an accurate headcount. Agenda: ? Review the results of the survey (the survey will be open through 23:59 UTC, Saturday, 17 October 2015) ? Discuss next steps toward prioritization and implementation ? Finalize the comment regarding recommendation 23 Comment: Attendees: 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue Oct 6 13:21:45 2015 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 09:21:45 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Working Party Session In-Reply-To: References: <12e6ce2dc2fb4bb6ae7979cdad883308@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <56131633.8040605@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <5613CAE9.7000008@mail.utoronto.ca> Yes Rafik pointed out to me that this was just invitation conversion to my local time....I am always confused by ICANN-sent invitations, some convert to my time, most are in UTC, I assumed this one was in Irish time.... I will be at the women's network breakfast. Will try to dash over but since it is offsite (no locale stated) I am afraid it might take a while in Dublin traffic, which I hear is grim. cheers Stephanie On 15-10-06 8:33 AM, Jen Wolfe wrote: > > HI Stephanie & the GNSO Review Team, > > It will be at 7 a.m. local time. I know that's early, but please do > try to attend as we need your participation to be effective. Also, > to follow up to Chuck's response, it took me about 45 minutes to > complete the survey. If you can please carve out the time, your > feedback will help us get an understanding as to what the members of > the Working Party think about the recommendations. This will help us > prioritize which recommendations may have wide-spread agreement and > which ones need more consideration or we should recommend that do not > proceed. > > The OEC is looking to us to provide feedback before making its > decision as to what to do with the report so your input is incredibly > valuable. This is the opportunity for the community to speak out and > provide our perspective on the recommendations. > > I found as I read through the recommendations again on the survey that > some seemed like generally good ideas, but might need a bit more > refinement whereas others were overly broad and would need a lot more > refinement or clarification. We have the ability to separate these > recommendations out and provide our feedback to the OEC so I encourage > you to please carve out the time between now and Dublin. > > I am looking forward to seeing you all in Dublin! > > Jen > > *jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB* > > Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm > > */513.746.2800 x 1 or Cell 513.238.4348/* > > */IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011-2014/* > > What will you do with your Dot Brand? : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P > > Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel on Brand gTLDs http://ow.ly/Eblgc > > Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column http://ow.ly/EbljP > > Linked In Group: gTLD Strategy for Brands http://ow.ly/EbloM > > *From:*owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephanie Perrin > *Sent:* Monday, October 05, 2015 8:31 PM > *To:* Charla Shambley ; > 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Working Party Session > > Um....I know we are dedicated and all that, but it will take more than > breakfast to get me there at 2:00am Charla...or am I mis-reading this? > Steph > > On 2015-10-05 20:24, Charla Shambley wrote: > > *Event Invitation* > > Title: > > > > GNSO Review - Working Party Session > > Location: > > > > Dublin - Room TBD > > When: > > > > October 19, 2015 2:00 -- 3:15 > > > > > > > Organizer: > > > > > > Charla Shambley > > > Description: > > > > More details to follow. Breakfast to be included so please rsvp > with an "accept" to this appointment so I can get an accurate > headcount. Agenda: . Review the results of the > survey > (the survey will be > open through 23:59 UTC, Saturday, 17 October 2015) . Discuss next > steps toward prioritization and implementation . Finalize the > comment regarding recommendation 23 > > Comment: > > > > Attendees: > > > > > > > > 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org ' > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From charla.shambley at icann.org Wed Oct 7 23:20:06 2015 From: charla.shambley at icann.org (Charla Shambley) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 23:20:06 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Final Report - Recommendation 1 Clarification Message-ID: <62d5a442f24f4aeb8a62cd23474a18cc@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear GNSO Review Working Party ? As a follow-up to our call last week, a question was raised regarding the reference to Section 5.4.5 in Recommendation 1. Westlake responded with the email below. In essence, Recommendation 1 will read: ?That the GNSO develop and monitor metrics to evaluate the ongoing effectiveness of current outreach strategies and pilot programmes with regard to GNSO Working Groups (WGs).? Regards, Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-745-1943 From: Vaughan Renner [mailto:vaughan at westlakegovernance.com] Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 8:52 PM To: Charla Shambley Cc: Colin Jackson ; Richard Westlake ; Larisa B. Gurnick Subject: Re: Final Report - Recommendation 1 Clarification Hi Charla, Colin and I have discussed the issue raised in your email. The original Section 5.4.5 was superseded following edits made earlier in the year. The material from that section is now distributed throughout the document, so a reference to Section 5.4.5 is no longer practical. We suggest the reference in the recommendation (contained within the brackets) simply be removed. So Recommendation 1 would therefore read: * That the GNSO develop and monitor metrics to evaluate the ongoing effectiveness of current outreach strategies and pilot programmes with regard to GNSO Working Groups (WGs). Hopefully this clears up any confusion. Best wishes, Vaughan (& Colin) Westlake Governance Building Boards into Leading Teams Developer and owner of the ?FICKS?? governance model e vaughan at westlakegovernance.com | w www.westlakegovernance.com | b www.boardsrus.net t +64 4 472 2009 | m +64 21 0233 2027 | a 1st Floor | St John House | 114 The Terrace | Wellington 6011 | New Zealand p P O Box 8052 | The Terrace | Wellington 6143 | New Zealand Premier New Zealand Partner of Board Benchmarking | www.boardbenchmarking.com This email with any attachments is confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to us and delete the email; please do not forward, print, copy, disclose, distribute or use it in any way. Please also destroy any paper copy that may have been printed. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From charla.shambley at icann.org Fri Oct 9 00:16:11 2015 From: charla.shambley at icann.org (Charla Shambley) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 00:16:11 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review Survey Message-ID: <887a583ff58947ddb81680d6654db7c9@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear GNSO Review Working Party - Thank you to the seven members that have either started or completed the survey. The survey will remain open for another 9 days - closing at 23:59 UTC on Saturday, 17 October - so that I can compile the results and have them ready for the working party session on Monday, 19 October. I urge all of you to provide feedback so that the session can be as productive as possible. Regards, Charla From: Charla Shambley Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 5:33 PM To: 'Gomes, Chuck' ; 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' Cc: 'gnso-secs at icann.org' Subject: RE: GNSO Review Survey and Dublin Session Thank you for the feedback, Chuck. So far we have three responses to the survey which took the responders between half an hour to one hour to complete. Just a reminder that if you cannot complete the survey you may save your progress and finish it at another time. You may edit your responses until the last page of this survey is completed up to 23:59 UTC, Saturday, 17 October 2015. You should have received an invitation from me for your working session in Dublin, scheduled on Monday, 19 October @ 7:00-8:15 GMT. If you are able to attend, please "accept" the invitation so that I can get an accurate headcount for breakfast. Thank you in advance! Charla From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 5:16 PM To: Charla Shambley >; 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' > Cc: 'gnso-secs at icann.org' > Subject: RE: GNSO Review Survey and Dublin Session All, It took me about one hour to complete the survey. I found it pretty easy to complete. I encourage everyone to complete it because I think the more responses we have to summarize the easier it will be for us discuss the recommendations to make implementation suggestions. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Charla Shambley Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 7:25 PM To: 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' Cc: 'gnso-secs at icann.org' Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Survey and Dublin Session Dear GNSO Review Working Party Members -- Following up to Wednesday's Working Party call, I bring your attention to the following: 1. SURVEY: In response to a suggestion at the last meeting, a survey has been set up to assist the Working Party to formulate feedback and feasibility assessment on the 36 recommendations in Westlake's Final Report. The compiled results will be used as a tool to assist the Working Party in determining prioritization of the recommendations. The survey is intended for the GNSO Review Working Party members and will remain open through 23:59 UTC, Saturday, 17 October 2015 - please complete it at your earliest convenience. 2. DUBLIN: Based on the doodle poll, your working session in Dublin has been scheduled for Monday, 19 October from 7:00-8:15 am UTC (breakfast will be provided). The Dublin meeting will be used to review the results of the survey, to discuss next steps toward prioritization and implementation, and to finalize the comment regarding recommendation 23. A calendar invite will be sent shortly. 3. WIKI UPDATES: If you missed Wednesday's call, please see the wiki for links to the mp3 recording, transcript, and chat pod. Enjoy your weekend and please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-745-1943 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From charla.shambley at icann.org Tue Oct 13 16:34:54 2015 From: charla.shambley at icann.org (Charla Shambley) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:34:54 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review Survey In-Reply-To: <887a583ff58947ddb81680d6654db7c9@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <887a583ff58947ddb81680d6654db7c9@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <3fc088849bb64d9b8714b3d416a4c75c@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear Working Party - Just a quick reminder before many of us leave for Dublin, I will be closing the survey in four days (23:59 IST on Saturday, 17 October). Thank you to the nine members that have started or completed the survey. I will compile the results for our working party session on Monday, 19 October (7:00-8:15 IST, location TBD). See you soon and safe travels! Charla From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Charla Shambley Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 5:16 PM To: 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review Survey Dear GNSO Review Working Party - Thank you to the seven members that have either started or completed the survey. The survey will remain open for another 9 days - closing at 23:59 IST on Saturday, 17 October - so that I can compile the results and have them ready for the working party session on Monday, 19 October. I urge all of you to provide feedback so that the session can be as productive as possible. Regards, Charla From: Charla Shambley Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 5:33 PM To: 'Gomes, Chuck' >; 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' > Cc: 'gnso-secs at icann.org' > Subject: RE: GNSO Review Survey and Dublin Session Thank you for the feedback, Chuck. So far we have three responses to the survey which took the responders between half an hour to one hour to complete. Just a reminder that if you cannot complete the survey you may save your progress and finish it at another time. You may edit your responses until the last page of this survey is completed up to 23:59 IST, Saturday, 17 October 2015. You should have received an invitation from me for your working session in Dublin, scheduled on Monday, 19 October @ 7:00-8:15 IST. If you are able to attend, please "accept" the invitation so that I can get an accurate headcount for breakfast. Thank you in advance! Charla From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 5:16 PM To: Charla Shambley >; 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' > Cc: 'gnso-secs at icann.org' > Subject: RE: GNSO Review Survey and Dublin Session All, It took me about one hour to complete the survey. I found it pretty easy to complete. I encourage everyone to complete it because I think the more responses we have to summarize the easier it will be for us discuss the recommendations to make implementation suggestions. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Charla Shambley Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 7:25 PM To: 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' Cc: 'gnso-secs at icann.org' Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Survey and Dublin Session Dear GNSO Review Working Party Members -- Following up to Wednesday's Working Party call, I bring your attention to the following: 1. SURVEY: In response to a suggestion at the last meeting, a survey has been set up to assist the Working Party to formulate feedback and feasibility assessment on the 36 recommendations in Westlake's Final Report. The compiled results will be used as a tool to assist the Working Party in determining prioritization of the recommendations. The survey is intended for the GNSO Review Working Party members and will remain open through 23:59 IST, Saturday, 17 October 2015 - please complete it at your earliest convenience. 2. DUBLIN: Based on the doodle poll, your working session in Dublin has been scheduled for Monday, 19 October from 7:00-8:15 am IST (breakfast will be provided). The Dublin meeting will be used to review the results of the survey, to discuss next steps toward prioritization and implementation, and to finalize the comment regarding recommendation 23. A calendar invite will be sent shortly. 3. WIKI UPDATES: If you missed Wednesday's call, please see the wiki for links to the mp3 recording, transcript, and chat pod. Enjoy your weekend and please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-745-1943 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Tue Oct 13 17:11:36 2015 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 19:11:36 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org> Hi, Apologies about revisiting this thread after so much time. > On Oct 1, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Bill, > > I think it is still somewhat up in the error. I suggested in our call yesterday that we could use some time talking about a possible statement but everyone else seemed to want to wait because the OEC gave us more time. Could we possibly put aside some time during the WP session in Dublin to discuss this. It?d be a good opportunity with a number of the WP members being present. I?m having trouble understanding why we haven?t been able to achieve consensus on this yet. I?m very willing to have changes made to the statement to accommodate any concerns expressed by NPOC, IPC and ISPCP, however, I don?t really see why there is a problem with the current draft. So far, IMHO, the feedback provided by the three constituencies does not really conflict with anything in there, except for something in the NPOC statement: > On Sep 30, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: [SNIP] > However, NPOC does not wish to address specific issues within the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Report. To do so would overlook the broader issue of methods used. It also risks offering validation of Report content where validation is not warranted. I don?t really agree with this. It?d be helpful to understand why addressing specific recommendations leads to overlooking broader issues of methodology, or validates the content of the report. Personally, I would expect the working party to have feedback on both; the methods used in the study in addition to the substantive recommendations. Why does NPOC believe they are mutually exclusive? It?d be great if we can narrow down specific language in the statement where disagreements may exist, so that changes can be suggested. I believe this would be a constructive use of our time in Dublin. I believe it is critically important that the working party achieves consensus on this topic if it is to provide any helpful feedback to the GNSO Council and the OEC. Thanks. Amr From cgomes at Verisign.com Tue Oct 13 17:53:17 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:53:17 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org> References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496F32A7@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> I feel the same as you Amr; that is why I would like to understand what parts of the statement are problematic. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 1:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: William Drake; Sam Lanfranco; Rudi Vansnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. Hi, Apologies about revisiting this thread after so much time. > On Oct 1, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Bill, > > I think it is still somewhat up in the error. I suggested in our call yesterday that we could use some time talking about a possible statement but everyone else seemed to want to wait because the OEC gave us more time. Could we possibly put aside some time during the WP session in Dublin to discuss this. It?d be a good opportunity with a number of the WP members being present. I?m having trouble understanding why we haven?t been able to achieve consensus on this yet. I?m very willing to have changes made to the statement to accommodate any concerns expressed by NPOC, IPC and ISPCP, however, I don?t really see why there is a problem with the current draft. So far, IMHO, the feedback provided by the three constituencies does not really conflict with anything in there, except for something in the NPOC statement: > On Sep 30, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: [SNIP] > However, NPOC does not wish to address specific issues within the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Report. To do so would overlook the broader issue of methods used. It also risks offering validation of Report content where validation is not warranted. I don?t really agree with this. It?d be helpful to understand why addressing specific recommendations leads to overlooking broader issues of methodology, or validates the content of the report. Personally, I would expect the working party to have feedback on both; the methods used in the study in addition to the substantive recommendations. Why does NPOC believe they are mutually exclusive? It?d be great if we can narrow down specific language in the statement where disagreements may exist, so that changes can be suggested. I believe this would be a constructive use of our time in Dublin. I believe it is critically important that the working party achieves consensus on this topic if it is to provide any helpful feedback to the GNSO Council and the OEC. Thanks. Amr From michele at blacknight.com Tue Oct 13 17:56:02 2015 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:56:02 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496F32A7@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org>,<6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496F32A7@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <248DB183-CA2E-45B1-8ADA-05CE7F8320E8@blacknight.com> And for the avoidance of doubt, as there appears to be some, the registrar stakeholder group supports the statement as drafted Regards Michele Mr. Michele Neylon Blacknight http://www.blacknight.irish Sent from a small shiny object so excuse fat fingers! > On 13 Oct 2015, at 18:54, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > > I feel the same as you Amr; that is why I would like to understand what parts of the statement are problematic. > > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org] > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 1:12 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: William Drake; Sam Lanfranco; Rudi Vansnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. > > Hi, > > Apologies about revisiting this thread after so much time. > >> On Oct 1, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >> >> Bill, >> >> I think it is still somewhat up in the error. I suggested in our call yesterday that we could use some time talking about a possible statement but everyone else seemed to want to wait because the OEC gave us more time. > > Could we possibly put aside some time during the WP session in Dublin to discuss this. It?d be a good opportunity with a number of the WP members being present. I?m having trouble understanding why we haven?t been able to achieve consensus on this yet. > > I?m very willing to have changes made to the statement to accommodate any concerns expressed by NPOC, IPC and ISPCP, however, I don?t really see why there is a problem with the current draft. So far, IMHO, the feedback provided by the three constituencies does not really conflict with anything in there, except for something in the NPOC statement: > >> On Sep 30, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > > [SNIP] > >> However, NPOC does not wish to address specific issues within the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Report. To do so would overlook the broader issue of methods used. It also risks offering validation of Report content where validation is not warranted. > > I don?t really agree with this. It?d be helpful to understand why addressing specific recommendations leads to overlooking broader issues of methodology, or validates the content of the report. Personally, I would expect the working party to have feedback on both; the methods used in the study in addition to the substantive recommendations. Why does NPOC believe they are mutually exclusive? > > It?d be great if we can narrow down specific language in the statement where disagreements may exist, so that changes can be suggested. I believe this would be a constructive use of our time in Dublin. I believe it is critically important that the working party achieves consensus on this topic if it is to provide any helpful feedback to the GNSO Council and the OEC. > > Thanks. > > Amr > From jwolfe at wolfedomain.com Tue Oct 13 18:10:02 2015 From: jwolfe at wolfedomain.com (Jen Wolfe) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:10:02 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: <248DB183-CA2E-45B1-8ADA-05CE7F8320E8@blacknight.com> References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org>,<6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496F32A7@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <248DB183-CA2E-45B1-8ADA-05CE7F8320E8@blacknight.com> Message-ID: This is on our agenda for our meeting next Monday in Dublin and agree that unless there is opposition, we should proceed with sending this to the OEC. If there are any groups that oppose the letter, please provide your feedback so we can respond accordingly. We have been given additional time from the OEC to respond on this and the other recommendations so we wanted to ensure that if there was an objection there was time for that to be voiced and that we all had sufficient time to review and respond. I look forward to seeing you all in Dublin and to our meeting next Monday at 7 a.m. local time. Thanks again for your continued support of this process! JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM 513.746.2800 X 1 OR CELL 513.238.4348 IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011-2014 What will you do with your Dot Brand?? : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel on Brand gTLDs? http://ow.ly/Eblgc ? Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column? http://ow.ly/EbljP ? Linked In Group:? gTLD Strategy for Brands http://ow.ly/EbloM -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 1:56 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Amr Elsadr ; William Drake ; Sam Lanfranco ; Rudi Vansnick ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. And for the avoidance of doubt, as there appears to be some, the registrar stakeholder group supports the statement as drafted Regards Michele Mr. Michele Neylon Blacknight http://www.blacknight.irish Sent from a small shiny object so excuse fat fingers! > On 13 Oct 2015, at 18:54, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > > I feel the same as you Amr; that is why I would like to understand what parts of the statement are problematic. > > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org] > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 1:12 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: William Drake; Sam Lanfranco; Rudi Vansnick; > gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. > > Hi, > > Apologies about revisiting this thread after so much time. > >> On Oct 1, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >> >> Bill, >> >> I think it is still somewhat up in the error. I suggested in our call yesterday that we could use some time talking about a possible statement but everyone else seemed to want to wait because the OEC gave us more time. > > Could we possibly put aside some time during the WP session in Dublin to discuss this. It'd be a good opportunity with a number of the WP members being present. I'm having trouble understanding why we haven't been able to achieve consensus on this yet. > > I'm very willing to have changes made to the statement to accommodate any concerns expressed by NPOC, IPC and ISPCP, however, I don't really see why there is a problem with the current draft. So far, IMHO, the feedback provided by the three constituencies does not really conflict with anything in there, except for something in the NPOC statement: > >> On Sep 30, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > > [SNIP] > >> However, NPOC does not wish to address specific issues within the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Report. To do so would overlook the broader issue of methods used. It also risks offering validation of Report content where validation is not warranted. > > I don't really agree with this. It'd be helpful to understand why addressing specific recommendations leads to overlooking broader issues of methodology, or validates the content of the report. Personally, I would expect the working party to have feedback on both; the methods used in the study in addition to the substantive recommendations. Why does NPOC believe they are mutually exclusive? > > It'd be great if we can narrow down specific language in the statement where disagreements may exist, so that changes can be suggested. I believe this would be a constructive use of our time in Dublin. I believe it is critically important that the working party achieves consensus on this topic if it is to provide any helpful feedback to the GNSO Council and the OEC. > > Thanks. > > Amr > From mike at rodenbaugh.com Tue Oct 13 18:21:10 2015 From: mike at rodenbaugh.com (Mike Rodenbaugh) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:21:10 -0700 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496F32A7@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <248DB183-CA2E-45B1-8ADA-05CE7F8320E8@blacknight.com> Message-ID: I regret that I will not have arrived in Dublin in time for this meeting. Jen can you please forward the latest iteration of the draft statement to the list. I think the last I have is a redline from you on Sept. 22? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Jen Wolfe wrote: > > This is on our agenda for our meeting next Monday in Dublin and agree that > unless there is opposition, we should proceed with sending this to the > OEC. If there are any groups that oppose the letter, please provide your > feedback so we can respond accordingly. > > We have been given additional time from the OEC to respond on this and the > other recommendations so we wanted to ensure that if there was an objection > there was time for that to be voiced and that we all had sufficient time to > review and respond. > > I look forward to seeing you all in Dublin and to our meeting next Monday > at 7 a.m. local time. Thanks again for your continued support of this > process! > > JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB > FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM > 513.746.2800 X 1 OR CELL 513.238.4348 > IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011-2014 > What will you do with your Dot Brand? : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P > Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel on Brand gTLDs http://ow.ly/Eblgc > Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column http://ow.ly/EbljP > Linked In Group: gTLD Strategy for Brands http://ow.ly/EbloM > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto: > owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 1:56 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: Amr Elsadr ; William Drake ; > Sam Lanfranco ; Rudi Vansnick ; > gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the > GNSO rec 23. > > > And for the avoidance of doubt, as there appears to be some, the registrar > stakeholder group supports the statement as drafted Regards Michele > > Mr. Michele Neylon > Blacknight > http://www.blacknight.irish > Sent from a small shiny object so excuse fat fingers! > > > On 13 Oct 2015, at 18:54, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > > > > > I feel the same as you Amr; that is why I would like to understand what > parts of the statement are problematic. > > > > Chuck > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 1:12 PM > > To: Gomes, Chuck > > Cc: William Drake; Sam Lanfranco; Rudi Vansnick; > > gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to > the GNSO rec 23. > > > > Hi, > > > > Apologies about revisiting this thread after so much time. > > > >> On Oct 1, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > >> > >> Bill, > >> > >> I think it is still somewhat up in the error. I suggested in our call > yesterday that we could use some time talking about a possible statement > but everyone else seemed to want to wait because the OEC gave us more time. > > > > Could we possibly put aside some time during the WP session in Dublin to > discuss this. It'd be a good opportunity with a number of the WP members > being present. I'm having trouble understanding why we haven't been able to > achieve consensus on this yet. > > > > I'm very willing to have changes made to the statement to accommodate > any concerns expressed by NPOC, IPC and ISPCP, however, I don't really see > why there is a problem with the current draft. So far, IMHO, the feedback > provided by the three constituencies does not really conflict with anything > in there, except for something in the NPOC statement: > > > >> On Sep 30, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Rudi Vansnick > wrote: > > > > [SNIP] > > > >> However, NPOC does not wish to address specific issues within the > conclusions and recommendations contained in the Report. To do so would > overlook the broader issue of methods used. It also risks offering > validation of Report content where validation is not warranted. > > > > I don't really agree with this. It'd be helpful to understand why > addressing specific recommendations leads to overlooking broader issues of > methodology, or validates the content of the report. Personally, I would > expect the working party to have feedback on both; the methods used in the > study in addition to the substantive recommendations. Why does NPOC believe > they are mutually exclusive? > > > > It'd be great if we can narrow down specific language in the statement > where disagreements may exist, so that changes can be suggested. I believe > this would be a constructive use of our time in Dublin. I believe it is > critically important that the working party achieves consensus on this > topic if it is to provide any helpful feedback to the GNSO Council and the > OEC. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Amr > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Tue Oct 13 19:44:55 2015 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:44:55 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496F32A7@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <248DB183-CA2E-45B1-8ADA-05CE7F8320E8@blacknight.com> Message-ID: <6EE13555-570E-409B-81AD-AC283352434F@egyptig.org> Great. Thanks Jen. Amr > On Oct 13, 2015, at 8:10 PM, Jen Wolfe wrote: > > > This is on our agenda for our meeting next Monday in Dublin and agree that unless there is opposition, we should proceed with sending this to the OEC. If there are any groups that oppose the letter, please provide your feedback so we can respond accordingly. > > We have been given additional time from the OEC to respond on this and the other recommendations so we wanted to ensure that if there was an objection there was time for that to be voiced and that we all had sufficient time to review and respond. > > I look forward to seeing you all in Dublin and to our meeting next Monday at 7 a.m. local time. Thanks again for your continued support of this process! > > JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB > FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM > 513.746.2800 X 1 OR CELL 513.238.4348 > IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011-2014 > What will you do with your Dot Brand? : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P > Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel on Brand gTLDs http://ow.ly/Eblgc > Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column http://ow.ly/EbljP > Linked In Group: gTLD Strategy for Brands http://ow.ly/EbloM > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 1:56 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: Amr Elsadr ; William Drake ; Sam Lanfranco ; Rudi Vansnick ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. > > > And for the avoidance of doubt, as there appears to be some, the registrar stakeholder group supports the statement as drafted Regards Michele > > Mr. Michele Neylon > Blacknight > http://www.blacknight.irish > Sent from a small shiny object so excuse fat fingers! > >> On 13 Oct 2015, at 18:54, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >> >> >> I feel the same as you Amr; that is why I would like to understand what parts of the statement are problematic. >> >> Chuck >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org] >> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 1:12 PM >> To: Gomes, Chuck >> Cc: William Drake; Sam Lanfranco; Rudi Vansnick; >> gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. >> >> Hi, >> >> Apologies about revisiting this thread after so much time. >> >>> On Oct 1, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >>> >>> Bill, >>> >>> I think it is still somewhat up in the error. I suggested in our call yesterday that we could use some time talking about a possible statement but everyone else seemed to want to wait because the OEC gave us more time. >> >> Could we possibly put aside some time during the WP session in Dublin to discuss this. It'd be a good opportunity with a number of the WP members being present. I'm having trouble understanding why we haven't been able to achieve consensus on this yet. >> >> I'm very willing to have changes made to the statement to accommodate any concerns expressed by NPOC, IPC and ISPCP, however, I don't really see why there is a problem with the current draft. So far, IMHO, the feedback provided by the three constituencies does not really conflict with anything in there, except for something in the NPOC statement: >> >>> On Sep 30, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: >> >> [SNIP] >> >>> However, NPOC does not wish to address specific issues within the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Report. To do so would overlook the broader issue of methods used. It also risks offering validation of Report content where validation is not warranted. >> >> I don't really agree with this. It'd be helpful to understand why addressing specific recommendations leads to overlooking broader issues of methodology, or validates the content of the report. Personally, I would expect the working party to have feedback on both; the methods used in the study in addition to the substantive recommendations. Why does NPOC believe they are mutually exclusive? >> >> It'd be great if we can narrow down specific language in the statement where disagreements may exist, so that changes can be suggested. I believe this would be a constructive use of our time in Dublin. I believe it is critically important that the working party achieves consensus on this topic if it is to provide any helpful feedback to the GNSO Council and the OEC. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> > > From wjdrake at gmail.com Wed Oct 14 03:55:42 2015 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 05:55:42 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496F32A7@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <248DB183-CA2E-45B1-8ADA-05CE7F8320E8@blacknight.com> Message-ID: Hi > On Oct 13, 2015, at 8:10 PM, Jen Wolfe wrote: > > This is on our agenda for our meeting next Monday in Dublin and agree that unless there is opposition, we should proceed with sending this to the OEC. If there are any groups that oppose the letter, please provide your feedback so we can respond accordingly. Just one more plea, building on Chuck and Amr?s, that any concerns be stated clearly and specifically so that dialogue and consensus building is possible. And please do bear in mind that raising concerns about the forced generalization of Rec. 23?s model to the entire GNSO does not in any way throw into question the operations of those who?ve chosen to follow the model. The only issue here is the notion that all parts of the community must conform to one model, rather than to approaches suited to their local circumstances. Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Wed Oct 14 18:00:14 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:00:14 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496F32A7@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <248DB183-CA2E-45B1-8ADA-05CE7F8320E8@blacknight.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496F5111@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> I found what I think are some formatting edits that are needed: ? I believe that what are now paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4 should be sub-paragraphs of what is now 4.2. ? I also think that what are now paragraphs 4.6 and 4.7 should be sub-paragraphs of what is now 4.5. If I am correct on these formatting edits, the attached relined file contains them. Chuck From: Jen Wolfe [mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 1:14 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh Cc: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; Gomes, Chuck; Amr Elsadr; William Drake; Sam Lanfranco; Rudi Vansnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. Mike, Attached is the most recent version of the letter. If you could email comments, we can incorporate them into our discussion on Monday morning. Thanks! Jen jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm 513.746.2800 x 1 or Cell 513.238.4348 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011-2014 What will you do with your Dot Brand? : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel on Brand gTLDs http://ow.ly/Eblgc Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column http://ow.ly/EbljP Linked In Group: gTLD Strategy for Brands http://ow.ly/EbloM From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 2:21 PM To: Jen Wolfe > Cc: Michele Neylon - Blacknight >; Gomes, Chuck >; Amr Elsadr >; William Drake >; Sam Lanfranco >; Rudi Vansnick >; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. I regret that I will not have arrived in Dublin in time for this meeting. Jen can you please forward the latest iteration of the draft statement to the list. I think the last I have is a redline from you on Sept. 22? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Jen Wolfe > wrote: This is on our agenda for our meeting next Monday in Dublin and agree that unless there is opposition, we should proceed with sending this to the OEC. If there are any groups that oppose the letter, please provide your feedback so we can respond accordingly. We have been given additional time from the OEC to respond on this and the other recommendations so we wanted to ensure that if there was an objection there was time for that to be voiced and that we all had sufficient time to review and respond. I look forward to seeing you all in Dublin and to our meeting next Monday at 7 a.m. local time. Thanks again for your continued support of this process! JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM 513.746.2800 X 1 OR CELL 513.238.4348 IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011-2014 What will you do with your Dot Brand? : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel on Brand gTLDs http://ow.ly/Eblgc Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column http://ow.ly/EbljP Linked In Group: gTLD Strategy for Brands http://ow.ly/EbloM -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 1:56 PM To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: Amr Elsadr >; William Drake >; Sam Lanfranco >; Rudi Vansnick >; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. And for the avoidance of doubt, as there appears to be some, the registrar stakeholder group supports the statement as drafted Regards Michele Mr. Michele Neylon Blacknight http://www.blacknight.irish Sent from a small shiny object so excuse fat fingers! > On 13 Oct 2015, at 18:54, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: > > > I feel the same as you Amr; that is why I would like to understand what parts of the statement are problematic. > > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org] > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 1:12 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: William Drake; Sam Lanfranco; Rudi Vansnick; > gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. > > Hi, > > Apologies about revisiting this thread after so much time. > >> On Oct 1, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: >> >> Bill, >> >> I think it is still somewhat up in the error. I suggested in our call yesterday that we could use some time talking about a possible statement but everyone else seemed to want to wait because the OEC gave us more time. > > Could we possibly put aside some time during the WP session in Dublin to discuss this. It'd be a good opportunity with a number of the WP members being present. I'm having trouble understanding why we haven't been able to achieve consensus on this yet. > > I'm very willing to have changes made to the statement to accommodate any concerns expressed by NPOC, IPC and ISPCP, however, I don't really see why there is a problem with the current draft. So far, IMHO, the feedback provided by the three constituencies does not really conflict with anything in there, except for something in the NPOC statement: > >> On Sep 30, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Rudi Vansnick > wrote: > > [SNIP] > >> However, NPOC does not wish to address specific issues within the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Report. To do so would overlook the broader issue of methods used. It also risks offering validation of Report content where validation is not warranted. > > I don't really agree with this. It'd be helpful to understand why addressing specific recommendations leads to overlooking broader issues of methodology, or validates the content of the report. Personally, I would expect the working party to have feedback on both; the methods used in the study in addition to the substantive recommendations. Why does NPOC believe they are mutually exclusive? > > It'd be great if we can narrow down specific language in the statement where disagreements may exist, so that changes can be suggested. I believe this would be a constructive use of our time in Dublin. I believe it is critically important that the working party achieves consensus on this topic if it is to provide any helpful feedback to the GNSO Council and the OEC. > > Thanks. > > Amr > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Points on Westlake Goverance GNSO Review Final Reports from WP with Gomes edits on 14 Oct.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 28992 bytes Desc: Draft Points on Westlake Goverance GNSO Review Final Reports from WP with Gomes edits on 14 Oct.docx URL: From jwolfe at wolfedomain.com Wed Oct 14 17:13:41 2015 From: jwolfe at wolfedomain.com (Jen Wolfe) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:13:41 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496F32A7@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <248DB183-CA2E-45B1-8ADA-05CE7F8320E8@blacknight.com> Message-ID: Mike, Attached is the most recent version of the letter. If you could email comments, we can incorporate them into our discussion on Monday morning. Thanks! Jen jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm 513.746.2800 x 1 or Cell 513.238.4348 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011-2014 What will you do with your Dot Brand? : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel on Brand gTLDs http://ow.ly/Eblgc Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column http://ow.ly/EbljP Linked In Group: gTLD Strategy for Brands http://ow.ly/EbloM From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 2:21 PM To: Jen Wolfe Cc: Michele Neylon - Blacknight ; Gomes, Chuck ; Amr Elsadr ; William Drake ; Sam Lanfranco ; Rudi Vansnick ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. I regret that I will not have arrived in Dublin in time for this meeting. Jen can you please forward the latest iteration of the draft statement to the list. I think the last I have is a redline from you on Sept. 22? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Jen Wolfe > wrote: This is on our agenda for our meeting next Monday in Dublin and agree that unless there is opposition, we should proceed with sending this to the OEC. If there are any groups that oppose the letter, please provide your feedback so we can respond accordingly. We have been given additional time from the OEC to respond on this and the other recommendations so we wanted to ensure that if there was an objection there was time for that to be voiced and that we all had sufficient time to review and respond. I look forward to seeing you all in Dublin and to our meeting next Monday at 7 a.m. local time. Thanks again for your continued support of this process! JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM 513.746.2800 X 1 OR CELL 513.238.4348 IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011-2014 What will you do with your Dot Brand? : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel on Brand gTLDs http://ow.ly/Eblgc Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column http://ow.ly/EbljP Linked In Group: gTLD Strategy for Brands http://ow.ly/EbloM -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 1:56 PM To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: Amr Elsadr >; William Drake >; Sam Lanfranco >; Rudi Vansnick >; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. And for the avoidance of doubt, as there appears to be some, the registrar stakeholder group supports the statement as drafted Regards Michele Mr. Michele Neylon Blacknight http://www.blacknight.irish Sent from a small shiny object so excuse fat fingers! > On 13 Oct 2015, at 18:54, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: > > > I feel the same as you Amr; that is why I would like to understand what parts of the statement are problematic. > > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org] > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 1:12 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: William Drake; Sam Lanfranco; Rudi Vansnick; > gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. > > Hi, > > Apologies about revisiting this thread after so much time. > >> On Oct 1, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: >> >> Bill, >> >> I think it is still somewhat up in the error. I suggested in our call yesterday that we could use some time talking about a possible statement but everyone else seemed to want to wait because the OEC gave us more time. > > Could we possibly put aside some time during the WP session in Dublin to discuss this. It'd be a good opportunity with a number of the WP members being present. I'm having trouble understanding why we haven't been able to achieve consensus on this yet. > > I'm very willing to have changes made to the statement to accommodate any concerns expressed by NPOC, IPC and ISPCP, however, I don't really see why there is a problem with the current draft. So far, IMHO, the feedback provided by the three constituencies does not really conflict with anything in there, except for something in the NPOC statement: > >> On Sep 30, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Rudi Vansnick > wrote: > > [SNIP] > >> However, NPOC does not wish to address specific issues within the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Report. To do so would overlook the broader issue of methods used. It also risks offering validation of Report content where validation is not warranted. > > I don't really agree with this. It'd be helpful to understand why addressing specific recommendations leads to overlooking broader issues of methodology, or validates the content of the report. Personally, I would expect the working party to have feedback on both; the methods used in the study in addition to the substantive recommendations. Why does NPOC believe they are mutually exclusive? > > It'd be great if we can narrow down specific language in the statement where disagreements may exist, so that changes can be suggested. I believe this would be a constructive use of our time in Dublin. I believe it is critically important that the working party achieves consensus on this topic if it is to provide any helpful feedback to the GNSO Council and the OEC. > > Thanks. > > Amr > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Points on Westlake Goverance GNSO Review Final Reports from WP.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 23945 bytes Desc: Draft Points on Westlake Goverance GNSO Review Final Reports from WP.docx URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Wed Oct 14 20:07:42 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 22:07:42 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org> References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org> Message-ID: I agree in parts, Amr. The letter could be sent making clear that additional WP work is needed. Our concern is more with the general tone. Almost four pages are used for counterarguments to Rec 23 which may imply the WP has already assessed the issue. To my knowledge this has not yet been the case. We think it should be done and should be clearly expressed that way. I've tried to accomodate the text accordingly (see attached) and am open to comments - as usual. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 7:11 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: William Drake ; Sam Lanfranco ; Rudi Vansnick ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. Hi, Apologies about revisiting this thread after so much time. > On Oct 1, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Bill, > > I think it is still somewhat up in the error. I suggested in our call > yesterday that we could use some time talking about a possible statement > but everyone else seemed to want to wait because the OEC gave us more > time. Could we possibly put aside some time during the WP session in Dublin to discuss this. It?d be a good opportunity with a number of the WP members being present. I?m having trouble understanding why we haven?t been able to achieve consensus on this yet. I?m very willing to have changes made to the statement to accommodate any concerns expressed by NPOC, IPC and ISPCP, however, I don?t really see why there is a problem with the current draft. So far, IMHO, the feedback provided by the three constituencies does not really conflict with anything in there, except for something in the NPOC statement: > On Sep 30, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: [SNIP] > However, NPOC does not wish to address specific issues within the > conclusions and recommendations contained in the Report. To do so would > overlook the broader issue of methods used. It also risks offering > validation of Report content where validation is not warranted. I don?t really agree with this. It?d be helpful to understand why addressing specific recommendations leads to overlooking broader issues of methodology, or validates the content of the report. Personally, I would expect the working party to have feedback on both; the methods used in the study in addition to the substantive recommendations. Why does NPOC believe they are mutually exclusive? It?d be great if we can narrow down specific language in the statement where disagreements may exist, so that changes can be suggested. I believe this would be a constructive use of our time in Dublin. I believe it is critically important that the working party achieves consensus on this topic if it is to provide any helpful feedback to the GNSO Council and the OEC. Thanks. Amr -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Points on Westlake Goverance GNSO Review Final Reports from WP_WUK edit.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 28566 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 08:08:02 2015 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:08:02 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <174BC810-080A-4CC1-9EDD-02570A9A09E2@gmail.com> Hi > On Oct 14, 2015, at 10:07 PM, WUKnoben wrote: > > I've tried to accomodate the text accordingly (see attached) and am open to comments - as usual. > If these edits would bring the ISP constituency on board then I?m all for them. Are there suggested edits from IPC and BC as well, bearing in mind again that the letter is not saying constituency-based Councilors are problematic where this has been chosen, only that the case for generalizing the approach to other groups in a top down manner has not been made? > On Oct 14, 2015, at 10:38 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: > > As a strategy I would prefer to treat the Westlake GNSO review products as "food for though" for a bottom up addressing of where goeth GNSO (in the light of Westlake, IANA, Accountability, Membership and what every impacts on context here). > > As a part of that strategy (and we are talking about strategy not outcomes)I would urge the Board to sit on hit hands and wait until it hears the results of an open and transparent dialogue, sensitive to all factors impacting context at the present time. Of course, I recognize that the NCSG consensus may differ from this position. Isn?t this in effect what we?re doing, saying please treat as food for thought, make no decisions based on Westlake 23, and let us have our own process? That being the case, would NPOC agree to send the letter, I?ve not been clear?? Thanks Bill From onovoa at Antel.com.uy Thu Oct 15 09:01:58 2015 From: onovoa at Antel.com.uy (Novoa, Osvaldo) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:01:58 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org>, Message-ID: Wolf-Ulrich, That is exactly my feeling. It seems as if we are disregarding the rest of the report due to Rec.23. I would prefer to say that we haven't study it in detail but it is clear that as it is it cannot be applied to all the Stake Holders Groups. We should discuss it on Monday. Best regards, Osvaldo Enviado desde mi iPhone > El 14 oct. 2015, a las 22:09, WUKnoben escribi?: > > I agree in parts, Amr. The letter could be sent making clear that additional WP work is needed. > Our concern is more with the general tone. Almost four pages are used for counterarguments to Rec 23 which may imply the WP has already assessed the issue. > To my knowledge this has not yet been the case. We think it should be done and should be clearly expressed that way. > > I've tried to accomodate the text accordingly (see attached) and am open to comments - as usual. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Amr Elsadr > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 7:11 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: William Drake ; Sam Lanfranco ; Rudi Vansnick ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. > > > Hi, > > Apologies about revisiting this thread after so much time. > >> On Oct 1, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >> >> Bill, >> >> I think it is still somewhat up in the error. I suggested in our call yesterday that we could use some time talking about a possible statement but everyone else seemed to want to wait because the OEC gave us more time. > > Could we possibly put aside some time during the WP session in Dublin to discuss this. It?d be a good opportunity with a number of the WP members being present. I?m having trouble understanding why we haven?t been able to achieve consensus on this yet. > > I?m very willing to have changes made to the statement to accommodate any concerns expressed by NPOC, IPC and ISPCP, however, I don?t really see why there is a problem with the current draft. So far, IMHO, the feedback provided by the three constituencies does not really conflict with anything in there, except for something in the NPOC statement: > >> On Sep 30, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > > [SNIP] > >> However, NPOC does not wish to address specific issues within the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Report. To do so would overlook the broader issue of methods used. It also risks offering validation of Report content where validation is not warranted. > > I don?t really agree with this. It?d be helpful to understand why addressing specific recommendations leads to overlooking broader issues of methodology, or validates the content of the report. Personally, I would expect the working party to have feedback on both; the methods used in the study in addition to the substantive recommendations. Why does NPOC believe they are mutually exclusive? > > It?d be great if we can narrow down specific language in the statement where disagreements may exist, so that changes can be suggested. I believe this would be a constructive use of our time in Dublin. I believe it is critically important that the working party achieves consensus on this topic if it is to provide any helpful feedback to the GNSO Council and the OEC. > > Thanks. > > Amr > ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est? dirigido ?nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci?n que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Est? prohibida cualquier utilizaci?n, difusi?n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec?ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci?n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol?tica de Seguridad de la Informaci?n This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy. From cgomes at Verisign.com Thu Oct 15 13:47:13 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:47:13 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: <561FA7C7.4060304@lanfranco.net> References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org> <174BC810-080A-4CC1-9EDD-02570A9A09E2@gmail.com> <561FA7C7.4060304@lanfranco.net> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496F5B8B@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Sam, As the original drafter of the letter, let me respond with my personal thoughts: ? On our last Working Party call, those on the call felt like it would be helpful to provide some timely feedback on concerns the Working Party had on Recommendation 23. ? The reason for singling out Recommendation 23 is spelled out in the letter. Here are just a couple of the reasons cited: 1) the Working Party was not consulted; 2) it is not well suited to the full GNSO. ? The rest of the recommendations are going to be considered by the Working Party in the coming weeks and feedback will be developed. ? It would be helpful to me to know if there are statements in the draft letter that you or the NPOC as a whole disagree with so that those could be addressed. Chuck From: Sam Lanfranco [mailto:sam at lanfranco.net] Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:19 AM To: William Drake; WUKnoben Cc: Amr Elsadr; Gomes, Chuck; Rudi Vansnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. Bill Asks: Isn?t this in effect what we?re doing, saying please treat as food for thought, make no decisions based on Westlake 23, and let us have our own process? That being the case, would NPOC agree to send the letter, I?ve not been clear?? On Oct 14, 2015, at 10:38 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote: As a strategy I would prefer to treat the Westlake GNSO review products as "food for though" for a bottom up addressing of where goeth GNSO (in the light of Westlake, IANA, Accountability, Membership and what every impacts on context here). As a part of that strategy (and we are talking about strategy not outcomes)I would urge the Board to sit on hit hands and wait until it hears the results of an open and transparent dialogue, sensitive to all factors impacting context at the present time. Of course, I recognize that the NCSG consensus may differ from this position. Bill asks whether or not NPOC would agree to send a letter specifically singling out Rec 23 in the Westlake Report as an item for board non-action. This is personal and individual response since I cannot talk for either NPOC or the NPOC ExCom here. It appears that significant players in both NCSG and NCUC have taken particular exception to this one of the many recommendations in the Westlake report, while agreeing in principle that the report process itself was seriously flawed. Would this NSCG recommendation be taken seriously by the Board? I don't know but what I do fear is that it is seen as a "green light" or signaling only weak opposition to an overall flawed report, and the Board would take the opportunity to range across the rest of the report, and its recommendations, and do what it wishes. I for one, not speaking for NPOC, am of the position that if the rest of NCSG feels so strongly about Rec 23, and not much about the rest of the report, how it was produced, or how it might be used, and decides that the NCSG statement goes forward, it simply contain a statement saying that NPOC has submitted its own response, and leave it at that. I will say that part of my strategy here is to recognize that a number os issues that impact on ICANN, its structures and processes are in rapid play at the moment and the context in which NCSG (NCUC/NPOC), GNSO, and everything else will have to be planning strategy to take, and protect, positions will require careful thought and probably opt for a "go slow" strategy. I have yet to hear why a strategy of singling out one recommendation within a flawed report is somehow the best strategy at this time. All I have heard is "are you in this with us or not". What is the strategic advantage to singling out one recommendation within a flawed report? What is the hurry when we know (or suspect) full well that the change process around IANA and Accountability will take quite a while to sort out? It is not enough to say "we have been discussing this for some time" since all the discussion was focused on the wording of a comment solely on Recommendation 23. Sam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Thu Oct 15 14:02:27 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:02:27 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org>, Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496F5CA2@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Osvaldo, As I communicated to Sam, I sure would appreciate finding out what elements of the letter you have problems with. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Novoa, Osvaldo [mailto:onovoa at antel.com.uy] Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 5:02 AM To: WUKnoben Cc: Amr Elsadr; Gomes, Chuck; William Drake; Sam Lanfranco; Rudi Vansnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. Wolf-Ulrich, That is exactly my feeling. It seems as if we are disregarding the rest of the report due to Rec.23. I would prefer to say that we haven't study it in detail but it is clear that as it is it cannot be applied to all the Stake Holders Groups. We should discuss it on Monday. Best regards, Osvaldo Enviado desde mi iPhone > El 14 oct. 2015, a las 22:09, WUKnoben escribi?: > > I agree in parts, Amr. The letter could be sent making clear that additional WP work is needed. > Our concern is more with the general tone. Almost four pages are used for counterarguments to Rec 23 which may imply the WP has already assessed the issue. > To my knowledge this has not yet been the case. We think it should be done and should be clearly expressed that way. > > I've tried to accomodate the text accordingly (see attached) and am open to comments - as usual. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Amr Elsadr > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 7:11 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: William Drake ; Sam Lanfranco ; Rudi Vansnick ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. > > > Hi, > > Apologies about revisiting this thread after so much time. > >> On Oct 1, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >> >> Bill, >> >> I think it is still somewhat up in the error. I suggested in our call yesterday that we could use some time talking about a possible statement but everyone else seemed to want to wait because the OEC gave us more time. > > Could we possibly put aside some time during the WP session in Dublin to discuss this. It'd be a good opportunity with a number of the WP members being present. I'm having trouble understanding why we haven't been able to achieve consensus on this yet. > > I'm very willing to have changes made to the statement to accommodate any concerns expressed by NPOC, IPC and ISPCP, however, I don't really see why there is a problem with the current draft. So far, IMHO, the feedback provided by the three constituencies does not really conflict with anything in there, except for something in the NPOC statement: > >> On Sep 30, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > > [SNIP] > >> However, NPOC does not wish to address specific issues within the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Report. To do so would overlook the broader issue of methods used. It also risks offering validation of Report content where validation is not warranted. > > I don't really agree with this. It'd be helpful to understand why addressing specific recommendations leads to overlooking broader issues of methodology, or validates the content of the report. Personally, I would expect the working party to have feedback on both; the methods used in the study in addition to the substantive recommendations. Why does NPOC believe they are mutually exclusive? > > It'd be great if we can narrow down specific language in the statement where disagreements may exist, so that changes can be suggested. I believe this would be a constructive use of our time in Dublin. I believe it is critically important that the working party achieves consensus on this topic if it is to provide any helpful feedback to the GNSO Council and the OEC. > > Thanks. > > Amr > ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est? dirigido ?nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci?n que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Est? prohibida cualquier utilizaci?n, difusi?n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec?ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci?n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol?tica de Seguridad de la Informaci?n This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy. From onovoa at Antel.com.uy Thu Oct 15 14:21:28 2015 From: onovoa at Antel.com.uy (Novoa, Osvaldo) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:21:28 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496F5CA2@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org>, ,<6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496F5CA2@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <7EE8463F-223F-4150-9BA9-7BD3501D0592@Antel.com.uy> Chuck, I am traveling today but I will try to write something before Monday though my English might not be that good. Best regards, Osvaldo Enviado desde mi iPhone > El 15 oct. 2015, a las 15:02, Gomes, Chuck escribi?: > > Osvaldo, > > As I communicated to Sam, I sure would appreciate finding out what elements of the letter you have problems with. > > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > From: Novoa, Osvaldo [mailto:onovoa at antel.com.uy] > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 5:02 AM > To: WUKnoben > Cc: Amr Elsadr; Gomes, Chuck; William Drake; Sam Lanfranco; Rudi Vansnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. > > Wolf-Ulrich, > That is exactly my feeling. It seems as if we are disregarding the rest of the report due to Rec.23. I would prefer to say that we haven't study it in detail but it is clear that as it is it cannot be applied to all the Stake Holders Groups. > We should discuss it on Monday. > Best regards, > Osvaldo > > Enviado desde mi iPhone > >> El 14 oct. 2015, a las 22:09, WUKnoben escribi?: >> >> I agree in parts, Amr. The letter could be sent making clear that additional WP work is needed. >> Our concern is more with the general tone. Almost four pages are used for counterarguments to Rec 23 which may imply the WP has already assessed the issue. >> To my knowledge this has not yet been the case. We think it should be done and should be clearly expressed that way. >> >> I've tried to accomodate the text accordingly (see attached) and am open to comments - as usual. >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Amr Elsadr >> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 7:11 PM >> To: Gomes, Chuck >> Cc: William Drake ; Sam Lanfranco ; Rudi Vansnick ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Apologies about revisiting this thread after so much time. >> >>> On Oct 1, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >>> >>> Bill, >>> >>> I think it is still somewhat up in the error. I suggested in our call yesterday that we could use some time talking about a possible statement but everyone else seemed to want to wait because the OEC gave us more time. >> >> Could we possibly put aside some time during the WP session in Dublin to discuss this. It'd be a good opportunity with a number of the WP members being present. I'm having trouble understanding why we haven't been able to achieve consensus on this yet. >> >> I'm very willing to have changes made to the statement to accommodate any concerns expressed by NPOC, IPC and ISPCP, however, I don't really see why there is a problem with the current draft. So far, IMHO, the feedback provided by the three constituencies does not really conflict with anything in there, except for something in the NPOC statement: >> >>> On Sep 30, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: >> >> [SNIP] >> >>> However, NPOC does not wish to address specific issues within the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Report. To do so would overlook the broader issue of methods used. It also risks offering validation of Report content where validation is not warranted. >> >> I don't really agree with this. It'd be helpful to understand why addressing specific recommendations leads to overlooking broader issues of methodology, or validates the content of the report. Personally, I would expect the working party to have feedback on both; the methods used in the study in addition to the substantive recommendations. Why does NPOC believe they are mutually exclusive? >> >> It'd be great if we can narrow down specific language in the statement where disagreements may exist, so that changes can be suggested. I believe this would be a constructive use of our time in Dublin. I believe it is critically important that the working party achieves consensus on this topic if it is to provide any helpful feedback to the GNSO Council and the OEC. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> > > ________________________________ > > El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est? dirigido ?nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci?n que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Est? prohibida cualquier utilizaci?n, difusi?n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec?ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci?n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol?tica de Seguridad de la Informaci?n > > > This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy. ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est? dirigido ?nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci?n que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Est? prohibida cualquier utilizaci?n, difusi?n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec?ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci?n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol?tica de Seguridad de la Informaci?n This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy. From onovoa at Antel.com.uy Fri Oct 16 10:46:58 2015 From: onovoa at Antel.com.uy (Novoa, Osvaldo) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:46:58 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: <7EE8463F-223F-4150-9BA9-7BD3501D0592@Antel.com.uy> References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496F5CA2@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <7EE8463F-223F-4150-9BA9-7BD3501D0592@Antel.com.uy> Message-ID: Chuck, I?ve been reviewing the different drafts and I feel more confortable with your original proposal with the elimination of the references to the NCSG. Best regards, Osvaldo > El 15 oct. 2015, a las 3:21 p.m., Novoa, Osvaldo escribi?: > > Chuck, > I am traveling today but I will try to write something before Monday though my English might not be that good. > Best regards, > Osvaldo > > Enviado desde mi iPhone > >> El 15 oct. 2015, a las 15:02, Gomes, Chuck escribi?: >> >> Osvaldo, >> >> As I communicated to Sam, I sure would appreciate finding out what elements of the letter you have problems with. >> >> Chuck >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Novoa, Osvaldo [mailto:onovoa at antel.com.uy] >> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 5:02 AM >> To: WUKnoben >> Cc: Amr Elsadr; Gomes, Chuck; William Drake; Sam Lanfranco; Rudi Vansnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. >> >> Wolf-Ulrich, >> That is exactly my feeling. It seems as if we are disregarding the rest of the report due to Rec.23. I would prefer to say that we haven't study it in detail but it is clear that as it is it cannot be applied to all the Stake Holders Groups. >> We should discuss it on Monday. >> Best regards, >> Osvaldo >> >> Enviado desde mi iPhone >> >>> El 14 oct. 2015, a las 22:09, WUKnoben escribi?: >>> >>> I agree in parts, Amr. The letter could be sent making clear that additional WP work is needed. >>> Our concern is more with the general tone. Almost four pages are used for counterarguments to Rec 23 which may imply the WP has already assessed the issue. >>> To my knowledge this has not yet been the case. We think it should be done and should be clearly expressed that way. >>> >>> I've tried to accomodate the text accordingly (see attached) and am open to comments - as usual. >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Amr Elsadr >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 7:11 PM >>> To: Gomes, Chuck >>> Cc: William Drake ; Sam Lanfranco ; Rudi Vansnick ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Apologies about revisiting this thread after so much time. >>> >>>> On Oct 1, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >>>> >>>> Bill, >>>> >>>> I think it is still somewhat up in the error. I suggested in our call yesterday that we could use some time talking about a possible statement but everyone else seemed to want to wait because the OEC gave us more time. >>> >>> Could we possibly put aside some time during the WP session in Dublin to discuss this. It'd be a good opportunity with a number of the WP members being present. I'm having trouble understanding why we haven't been able to achieve consensus on this yet. >>> >>> I'm very willing to have changes made to the statement to accommodate any concerns expressed by NPOC, IPC and ISPCP, however, I don't really see why there is a problem with the current draft. So far, IMHO, the feedback provided by the three constituencies does not really conflict with anything in there, except for something in the NPOC statement: >>> >>>> On Sep 30, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: >>> >>> [SNIP] >>> >>>> However, NPOC does not wish to address specific issues within the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Report. To do so would overlook the broader issue of methods used. It also risks offering validation of Report content where validation is not warranted. >>> >>> I don't really agree with this. It'd be helpful to understand why addressing specific recommendations leads to overlooking broader issues of methodology, or validates the content of the report. Personally, I would expect the working party to have feedback on both; the methods used in the study in addition to the substantive recommendations. Why does NPOC believe they are mutually exclusive? >>> >>> It'd be great if we can narrow down specific language in the statement where disagreements may exist, so that changes can be suggested. I believe this would be a constructive use of our time in Dublin. I believe it is critically important that the working party achieves consensus on this topic if it is to provide any helpful feedback to the GNSO Council and the OEC. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est? dirigido ?nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci?n que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Est? prohibida cualquier utilizaci?n, difusi?n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec?ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci?n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol?tica de Seguridad de la Informaci?n >> >> >> This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy. ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est? dirigido ?nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci?n que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Est? prohibida cualquier utilizaci?n, difusi?n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec?ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci?n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol?tica de Seguridad de la Informaci?n This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy. From charla.shambley at icann.org Fri Oct 16 13:59:21 2015 From: charla.shambley at icann.org (Charla Shambley) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:59:21 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Survey is Closing Message-ID: <45cfaf60440446f0870f875d25a3254b@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear Working Party - There is still time left before I close the survey. We still have nine members (40% participation rate) that have completed the survey to date. Please set aside some time between now and midnight tomorrow to provide your feedback on the 36 recommendations in the Final Report. Thank you! Charla From: Charla Shambley Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 5:35 PM To: 'Charla Shambley' ; 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' Subject: RE: GNSO Review Survey Dear Working Party - Just a quick reminder before many of us leave for Dublin, I will be closing the survey in four days (23:59 IST on Saturday, 17 October). Thank you to the nine members that have started or completed the survey. I will compile the results for our working party session on Monday, 19 October (7:00-8:15 IST, location TBD). See you soon and safe travels! Charla From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Charla Shambley Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 5:16 PM To: 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' > Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review Survey Dear GNSO Review Working Party - Thank you to the seven members that have either started or completed the survey. The survey will remain open for another 9 days - closing at 23:59 IST on Saturday, 17 October - so that I can compile the results and have them ready for the working party session on Monday, 19 October. I urge all of you to provide feedback so that the session can be as productive as possible. Regards, Charla From: Charla Shambley Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 5:33 PM To: 'Gomes, Chuck' >; 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' > Cc: 'gnso-secs at icann.org' > Subject: RE: GNSO Review Survey and Dublin Session Thank you for the feedback, Chuck. So far we have three responses to the survey which took the responders between half an hour to one hour to complete. Just a reminder that if you cannot complete the survey you may save your progress and finish it at another time. You may edit your responses until the last page of this survey is completed up to 23:59 IST, Saturday, 17 October 2015. You should have received an invitation from me for your working session in Dublin, scheduled on Monday, 19 October @ 7:00-8:15 IST. If you are able to attend, please "accept" the invitation so that I can get an accurate headcount for breakfast. Thank you in advance! Charla From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 5:16 PM To: Charla Shambley >; 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' > Cc: 'gnso-secs at icann.org' > Subject: RE: GNSO Review Survey and Dublin Session All, It took me about one hour to complete the survey. I found it pretty easy to complete. I encourage everyone to complete it because I think the more responses we have to summarize the easier it will be for us discuss the recommendations to make implementation suggestions. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Charla Shambley Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 7:25 PM To: 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' Cc: 'gnso-secs at icann.org' Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Survey and Dublin Session Dear GNSO Review Working Party Members -- Following up to Wednesday's Working Party call, I bring your attention to the following: 1. SURVEY: In response to a suggestion at the last meeting, a survey has been set up to assist the Working Party to formulate feedback and feasibility assessment on the 36 recommendations in Westlake's Final Report. The compiled results will be used as a tool to assist the Working Party in determining prioritization of the recommendations. The survey is intended for the GNSO Review Working Party members and will remain open through 23:59 IST, Saturday, 17 October 2015 - please complete it at your earliest convenience. 2. DUBLIN: Based on the doodle poll, your working session in Dublin has been scheduled for Monday, 19 October from 7:00-8:15 am IST (breakfast will be provided). The Dublin meeting will be used to review the results of the survey, to discuss next steps toward prioritization and implementation, and to finalize the comment regarding recommendation 23. A calendar invite will be sent shortly. 3. WIKI UPDATES: If you missed Wednesday's call, please see the wiki for links to the mp3 recording, transcript, and chat pod. Enjoy your weekend and please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-745-1943 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Fri Oct 16 21:06:42 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 21:06:42 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496F5CA2@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <7EE8463F-223F-4150-9BA9-7BD3501D0592@Antel.com.uy>, Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496F863D@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Thanks for the feedback Osvaldo. Chuck ________________________________________ From: Novoa, Osvaldo [onovoa at antel.com.uy] Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 6:46 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Amr Elsadr; William Drake; Sam Lanfranco; Rudi Vansnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. Chuck, I?ve been reviewing the different drafts and I feel more confortable with your original proposal with the elimination of the references to the NCSG. Best regards, Osvaldo > El 15 oct. 2015, a las 3:21 p.m., Novoa, Osvaldo escribi?: > > Chuck, > I am traveling today but I will try to write something before Monday though my English might not be that good. > Best regards, > Osvaldo > > Enviado desde mi iPhone > >> El 15 oct. 2015, a las 15:02, Gomes, Chuck escribi?: >> >> Osvaldo, >> >> As I communicated to Sam, I sure would appreciate finding out what elements of the letter you have problems with. >> >> Chuck >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Novoa, Osvaldo [mailto:onovoa at antel.com.uy] >> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 5:02 AM >> To: WUKnoben >> Cc: Amr Elsadr; Gomes, Chuck; William Drake; Sam Lanfranco; Rudi Vansnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. >> >> Wolf-Ulrich, >> That is exactly my feeling. It seems as if we are disregarding the rest of the report due to Rec.23. I would prefer to say that we haven't study it in detail but it is clear that as it is it cannot be applied to all the Stake Holders Groups. >> We should discuss it on Monday. >> Best regards, >> Osvaldo >> >> Enviado desde mi iPhone >> >>> El 14 oct. 2015, a las 22:09, WUKnoben escribi?: >>> >>> I agree in parts, Amr. The letter could be sent making clear that additional WP work is needed. >>> Our concern is more with the general tone. Almost four pages are used for counterarguments to Rec 23 which may imply the WP has already assessed the issue. >>> To my knowledge this has not yet been the case. We think it should be done and should be clearly expressed that way. >>> >>> I've tried to accomodate the text accordingly (see attached) and am open to comments - as usual. >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Amr Elsadr >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 7:11 PM >>> To: Gomes, Chuck >>> Cc: William Drake ; Sam Lanfranco ; Rudi Vansnick ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Apologies about revisiting this thread after so much time. >>> >>>> On Oct 1, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >>>> >>>> Bill, >>>> >>>> I think it is still somewhat up in the error. I suggested in our call yesterday that we could use some time talking about a possible statement but everyone else seemed to want to wait because the OEC gave us more time. >>> >>> Could we possibly put aside some time during the WP session in Dublin to discuss this. It'd be a good opportunity with a number of the WP members being present. I'm having trouble understanding why we haven't been able to achieve consensus on this yet. >>> >>> I'm very willing to have changes made to the statement to accommodate any concerns expressed by NPOC, IPC and ISPCP, however, I don't really see why there is a problem with the current draft. So far, IMHO, the feedback provided by the three constituencies does not really conflict with anything in there, except for something in the NPOC statement: >>> >>>> On Sep 30, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: >>> >>> [SNIP] >>> >>>> However, NPOC does not wish to address specific issues within the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Report. To do so would overlook the broader issue of methods used. It also risks offering validation of Report content where validation is not warranted. >>> >>> I don't really agree with this. It'd be helpful to understand why addressing specific recommendations leads to overlooking broader issues of methodology, or validates the content of the report. Personally, I would expect the working party to have feedback on both; the methods used in the study in addition to the substantive recommendations. Why does NPOC believe they are mutually exclusive? >>> >>> It'd be great if we can narrow down specific language in the statement where disagreements may exist, so that changes can be suggested. I believe this would be a constructive use of our time in Dublin. I believe it is critically important that the working party achieves consensus on this topic if it is to provide any helpful feedback to the GNSO Council and the OEC. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est? dirigido ?nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci?n que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Est? prohibida cualquier utilizaci?n, difusi?n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec?ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci?n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol?tica de Seguridad de la Informaci?n >> >> >> This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy. ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est? dirigido ?nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci?n que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Est? prohibida cualquier utilizaci?n, difusi?n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec?ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci?n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol?tica de Seguridad de la Informaci?n This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy. From cgomes at Verisign.com Fri Oct 16 23:08:57 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 23:08:57 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org>, Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496F8D14@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> I am fine with the edits Wolf-Ulrich made except possibly this one: "The WP together with the GNSO community should first be given the opportunity to conduct its own internal assessment and, if there are some problems that need to be solved, develop possible solutions for them." I personally don't think it is a matter of 'if there are some problems'. Even Westlake themselves identified some problems with this recommendations. So I would suggest tweaking this sentence a little. Chuck ________________________________________ From: WUKnoben [wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de] Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 4:07 PM To: Amr Elsadr; Gomes, Chuck Cc: William Drake; Sam Lanfranco; Rudi Vansnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. I agree in parts, Amr. The letter could be sent making clear that additional WP work is needed. Our concern is more with the general tone. Almost four pages are used for counterarguments to Rec 23 which may imply the WP has already assessed the issue. To my knowledge this has not yet been the case. We think it should be done and should be clearly expressed that way. I've tried to accomodate the text accordingly (see attached) and am open to comments - as usual. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 7:11 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: William Drake ; Sam Lanfranco ; Rudi Vansnick ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. Hi, Apologies about revisiting this thread after so much time. > On Oct 1, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Bill, > > I think it is still somewhat up in the error. I suggested in our call > yesterday that we could use some time talking about a possible statement > but everyone else seemed to want to wait because the OEC gave us more > time. Could we possibly put aside some time during the WP session in Dublin to discuss this. It?d be a good opportunity with a number of the WP members being present. I?m having trouble understanding why we haven?t been able to achieve consensus on this yet. I?m very willing to have changes made to the statement to accommodate any concerns expressed by NPOC, IPC and ISPCP, however, I don?t really see why there is a problem with the current draft. So far, IMHO, the feedback provided by the three constituencies does not really conflict with anything in there, except for something in the NPOC statement: > On Sep 30, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: [SNIP] > However, NPOC does not wish to address specific issues within the > conclusions and recommendations contained in the Report. To do so would > overlook the broader issue of methods used. It also risks offering > validation of Report content where validation is not warranted. I don?t really agree with this. It?d be helpful to understand why addressing specific recommendations leads to overlooking broader issues of methodology, or validates the content of the report. Personally, I would expect the working party to have feedback on both; the methods used in the study in addition to the substantive recommendations. Why does NPOC believe they are mutually exclusive? It?d be great if we can narrow down specific language in the statement where disagreements may exist, so that changes can be suggested. I believe this would be a constructive use of our time in Dublin. I believe it is critically important that the working party achieves consensus on this topic if it is to provide any helpful feedback to the GNSO Council and the OEC. Thanks. Amr From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Sat Oct 17 07:53:02 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 09:53:02 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496F8D14@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org>, <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496F8D14@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <1067DA2E03FD4A659F69C3B1A130A318@WUKPC> I'm ok with this, Chuck. My approach was more relazed to use the present WP as the platform for the work rather than leave it just to the GNSO community as written in the former text. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 1:08 AM To: WUKnoben ; Amr Elsadr Cc: William Drake ; Sam Lanfranco ; Rudi Vansnick ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. I am fine with the edits Wolf-Ulrich made except possibly this one: "The WP together with the GNSO community should first be given the opportunity to conduct its own internal assessment and, if there are some problems that need to be solved, develop possible solutions for them." I personally don't think it is a matter of 'if there are some problems'. Even Westlake themselves identified some problems with this recommendations. So I would suggest tweaking this sentence a little. Chuck ________________________________________ From: WUKnoben [wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de] Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 4:07 PM To: Amr Elsadr; Gomes, Chuck Cc: William Drake; Sam Lanfranco; Rudi Vansnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. I agree in parts, Amr. The letter could be sent making clear that additional WP work is needed. Our concern is more with the general tone. Almost four pages are used for counterarguments to Rec 23 which may imply the WP has already assessed the issue. To my knowledge this has not yet been the case. We think it should be done and should be clearly expressed that way. I've tried to accomodate the text accordingly (see attached) and am open to comments - as usual. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 7:11 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: William Drake ; Sam Lanfranco ; Rudi Vansnick ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. Hi, Apologies about revisiting this thread after so much time. > On Oct 1, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Bill, > > I think it is still somewhat up in the error. I suggested in our call > yesterday that we could use some time talking about a possible statement > but everyone else seemed to want to wait because the OEC gave us more > time. Could we possibly put aside some time during the WP session in Dublin to discuss this. It?d be a good opportunity with a number of the WP members being present. I?m having trouble understanding why we haven?t been able to achieve consensus on this yet. I?m very willing to have changes made to the statement to accommodate any concerns expressed by NPOC, IPC and ISPCP, however, I don?t really see why there is a problem with the current draft. So far, IMHO, the feedback provided by the three constituencies does not really conflict with anything in there, except for something in the NPOC statement: > On Sep 30, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: [SNIP] > However, NPOC does not wish to address specific issues within the > conclusions and recommendations contained in the Report. To do so would > overlook the broader issue of methods used. It also risks offering > validation of Report content where validation is not warranted. I don?t really agree with this. It?d be helpful to understand why addressing specific recommendations leads to overlooking broader issues of methodology, or validates the content of the report. Personally, I would expect the working party to have feedback on both; the methods used in the study in addition to the substantive recommendations. Why does NPOC believe they are mutually exclusive? It?d be great if we can narrow down specific language in the statement where disagreements may exist, so that changes can be suggested. I believe this would be a constructive use of our time in Dublin. I believe it is critically important that the working party achieves consensus on this topic if it is to provide any helpful feedback to the GNSO Council and the OEC. Thanks. Amr From cgomes at Verisign.com Sat Oct 17 15:13:46 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 15:13:46 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: <1067DA2E03FD4A659F69C3B1A130A318@WUKPC> References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org>, <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496F8D14@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>,<1067DA2E03FD4A659F69C3B1A130A318@WUKPC> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496FA68E@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Thanks Wolf-Ulrich. Chuck ________________________________________ From: WUKnoben [wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de] Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 3:53 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Amr Elsadr Cc: William Drake; Sam Lanfranco; Rudi Vansnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. I'm ok with this, Chuck. My approach was more relazed to use the present WP as the platform for the work rather than leave it just to the GNSO community as written in the former text. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 1:08 AM To: WUKnoben ; Amr Elsadr Cc: William Drake ; Sam Lanfranco ; Rudi Vansnick ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. I am fine with the edits Wolf-Ulrich made except possibly this one: "The WP together with the GNSO community should first be given the opportunity to conduct its own internal assessment and, if there are some problems that need to be solved, develop possible solutions for them." I personally don't think it is a matter of 'if there are some problems'. Even Westlake themselves identified some problems with this recommendations. So I would suggest tweaking this sentence a little. Chuck ________________________________________ From: WUKnoben [wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de] Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 4:07 PM To: Amr Elsadr; Gomes, Chuck Cc: William Drake; Sam Lanfranco; Rudi Vansnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. I agree in parts, Amr. The letter could be sent making clear that additional WP work is needed. Our concern is more with the general tone. Almost four pages are used for counterarguments to Rec 23 which may imply the WP has already assessed the issue. To my knowledge this has not yet been the case. We think it should be done and should be clearly expressed that way. I've tried to accomodate the text accordingly (see attached) and am open to comments - as usual. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- From: Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 7:11 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: William Drake ; Sam Lanfranco ; Rudi Vansnick ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. Hi, Apologies about revisiting this thread after so much time. > On Oct 1, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Bill, > > I think it is still somewhat up in the error. I suggested in our call > yesterday that we could use some time talking about a possible statement > but everyone else seemed to want to wait because the OEC gave us more > time. Could we possibly put aside some time during the WP session in Dublin to discuss this. It?d be a good opportunity with a number of the WP members being present. I?m having trouble understanding why we haven?t been able to achieve consensus on this yet. I?m very willing to have changes made to the statement to accommodate any concerns expressed by NPOC, IPC and ISPCP, however, I don?t really see why there is a problem with the current draft. So far, IMHO, the feedback provided by the three constituencies does not really conflict with anything in there, except for something in the NPOC statement: > On Sep 30, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: [SNIP] > However, NPOC does not wish to address specific issues within the > conclusions and recommendations contained in the Report. To do so would > overlook the broader issue of methods used. It also risks offering > validation of Report content where validation is not warranted. I don?t really agree with this. It?d be helpful to understand why addressing specific recommendations leads to overlooking broader issues of methodology, or validates the content of the report. Personally, I would expect the working party to have feedback on both; the methods used in the study in addition to the substantive recommendations. Why does NPOC believe they are mutually exclusive? It?d be great if we can narrow down specific language in the statement where disagreements may exist, so that changes can be suggested. I believe this would be a constructive use of our time in Dublin. I believe it is critically important that the working party achieves consensus on this topic if it is to provide any helpful feedback to the GNSO Council and the OEC. Thanks. Amr From aelsadr at egyptig.org Sun Oct 18 12:36:29 2015 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:36:29 +0100 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Survey In-Reply-To: <3fc088849bb64d9b8714b3d416a4c75c@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <887a583ff58947ddb81680d6654db7c9@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <3fc088849bb64d9b8714b3d416a4c75c@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <4A28740F-5DAD-431F-9B30-453F59ECCDD5@egyptig.org> Hi, I might have missed it, but has a location for tomorrow morning?s meeting been set? Thanks. Amr > On Oct 13, 2015, at 5:34 PM, Charla Shambley wrote: > > Dear Working Party ? > > Just a quick reminder before many of us leave for Dublin, I will be closing the survey in four days (23:59 IST on Saturday, 17 October). > > Thank you to the nine members that have started or completed the survey. I will compile the results for our working party session on Monday, 19 October (7:00-8:15 IST, location TBD). > > See you soon and safe travels! > > Charla > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Charla Shambley > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 5:16 PM > To: 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' > Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review Survey > > Dear GNSO Review Working Party ? > > Thank you to the seven members that have either started or completed the survey. The survey will remain open for another 9 days ? closing at 23:59 IST on Saturday, 17 October ? so that I can compile the results and have them ready for the working party session on Monday, 19 October. I urge all of you to provide feedback so that the session can be as productive as possible. > > Regards, > > Charla > > From: Charla Shambley > Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 5:33 PM > To: 'Gomes, Chuck' ; 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' > Cc: 'gnso-secs at icann.org' > Subject: RE: GNSO Review Survey and Dublin Session > > Thank you for the feedback, Chuck. > > So far we have three responses to the survey which took the responders between half an hour to one hour to complete. Just a reminder that if you cannot complete the survey you may save your progress and finish it at another time. You may edit your responses until the last page of this survey is completed up to 23:59 IST, Saturday, 17 October 2015. > > You should have received an invitation from me for your working session in Dublin, scheduled on Monday, 19 October @ 7:00-8:15 IST. If you are able to attend, please ?accept? the invitation so that I can get an accurate headcount for breakfast. > > Thank you in advance! > > Charla > > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] > Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 5:16 PM > To: Charla Shambley ; 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' > Cc: 'gnso-secs at icann.org' > Subject: RE: GNSO Review Survey and Dublin Session > > All, > > It took me about one hour to complete the survey. I found it pretty easy to complete. > > I encourage everyone to complete it because I think the more responses we have to summarize the easier it will be for us discuss the recommendations to make implementation suggestions. > > Chuck > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Charla Shambley > Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 7:25 PM > To: 'gnso-review-dt at icann.org' > Cc: 'gnso-secs at icann.org' > Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Survey and Dublin Session > > Dear GNSO Review Working Party Members -- > > Following up to Wednesday?s Working Party call, I bring your attention to the following: > > 1. SURVEY: In response to a suggestion at the last meeting, a survey has been set up to assist the Working Party to formulate feedback and feasibility assessment on the 36 recommendations in Westlake?s Final Report. The compiled results will be used as a tool to assist the Working Party in determining prioritization of the recommendations. The survey is intended for the GNSO Review Working Party members and will remain open through 23:59 IST, Saturday, 17 October 2015 ? please complete it at your earliest convenience. > 2. DUBLIN: Based on the doodle poll, your working session in Dublin has been scheduled forMonday, 19 October from 7:00-8:15 am IST (breakfast will be provided). The Dublin meeting will be used to review the results of the survey, to discuss next steps toward prioritization and implementation, and to finalize the comment regarding recommendation 23. A calendar invite will be sent shortly. > 3. WIKI UPDATES: If you missed Wednesday?s call, please see the wiki for links to the mp3 recording, transcript, and chat pod. > > Enjoy your weekend and please let me know if you have any questions. > > Regards, > > Charla > > Charla K. Shambley > Strategic Initiatives Program Manager > ICANN > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > Los Angeles, CA 90094 > 310-745-1943 From charla.shambley at icann.org Sun Oct 18 13:21:55 2015 From: charla.shambley at icann.org (Charla Shambley) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:21:55 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Working Party Session Message-ID: Date: 19 October Time: 7:00-8:15 am IST Room: Liffey MR2 Remote participation will not be available for this meeting. Agenda: * Review the results of the survey (the survey results will be sent under separate cover) * Discuss next steps toward prioritization and implementation * Finalize the comment regarding recommendation 23 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 4189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Sun Oct 18 14:44:27 2015 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:44:27 +0100 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496F5CA2@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <7EE8463F-223F-4150-9BA9-7BD3501D0592@Antel.com.uy> Message-ID: <9BD689F5-611A-492A-B0DC-62F67837455C@gmail.com> Hi Osvaldo Would the attached edit be sufficient from your standpoint? Best Bill > On Oct 16, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Novoa, Osvaldo wrote: > > Chuck, > I?ve been reviewing the different drafts and I feel more confortable with your original proposal with the elimination of the references to the NCSG. > Best regards, > Osvaldo > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Points on Westlake Goverance GNSO Review Final Reports from WP_WUK BD edit.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 29048 bytes Desc: not available URL: From onovoa at Antel.com.uy Sun Oct 18 15:26:15 2015 From: onovoa at Antel.com.uy (Novoa, Osvaldo) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:26:15 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: <9BD689F5-611A-492A-B0DC-62F67837455C@gmail.com> References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496F5CA2@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <7EE8463F-223F-4150-9BA9-7BD3501D0592@Antel.com.uy> ,<9BD689F5-611A-492A-B0DC-62F67837455C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6737F46C-8994-4A99-AB5A-C00AE3BDB2A1@Antel.com.uy> Hi Bill, I would have prefer for it to be shorter, but I am ok with its content, thank you and best regards, Osvaldo Enviado desde mi iPhone > El 18 oct. 2015, a las 15:44, William Drake escribi?: > > Hi Osvaldo > > Would the attached edit be sufficient from your standpoint? > > Best > > Bill > >> On Oct 16, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Novoa, Osvaldo wrote: >> >> Chuck, >> I?ve been reviewing the different drafts and I feel more confortable with your original proposal with the elimination of the references to the NCSG. >> Best regards, >> Osvaldo > ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est? dirigido ?nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci?n que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Est? prohibida cualquier utilizaci?n, difusi?n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec?ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci?n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol?tica de Seguridad de la Informaci?n This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy. From cgomes at Verisign.com Sun Oct 18 15:39:04 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:39:04 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: <9BD689F5-611A-492A-B0DC-62F67837455C@gmail.com> References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DDDE0@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <916CF98D-E8A7-4F22-84E2-F1FBD04FBF43@egyptig.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496F5CA2@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <7EE8463F-223F-4150-9BA9-7BD3501D0592@Antel.com.uy> ,<9BD689F5-611A-492A-B0DC-62F67837455C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496FB1E2@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> The latest edits look good to me. Chuck ________________________________________ From: William Drake [wjdrake at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 10:44 AM To: Novoa, Osvaldo Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Amr Elsadr; Sam Lanfranco; Rudi Vansnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. Hi Osvaldo Would the attached edit be sufficient from your standpoint? Best Bill > On Oct 16, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Novoa, Osvaldo wrote: > > Chuck, > I?ve been reviewing the different drafts and I feel more confortable with your original proposal with the elimination of the references to the NCSG. > Best regards, > Osvaldo > > From larisa.gurnick at icann.org Sun Oct 18 17:29:17 2015 From: larisa.gurnick at icann.org (Larisa B. Gurnick) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 17:29:17 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Initial Survey Results - Feasibility Assessment of 36 Final Recommendations Message-ID: Dear GNSO Review Working Party, Attached is the Initial Summary of Survey Results based on survey responses you submitted reflecting your views on feasibility of implementation of each of the 36 recommendations. The attached spread sheet has the following components: 1. Summary tab - provides a composite for all recommendations, listing what appears to be the most prevalent view. 2. Comments only tab - lists all the free-form comments submitted for each recommendation. 3. 1-36 tabs - extract from Survey Monkey of statistics, by recommendation where you can see the entire statistical summary This information reflects 13 responses, of which 11 were complete and 2 incomplete. Please note that the number of responders to a given question may vary - responders were free to answer only those questions that they wished. Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey and we hope that you find this information useful for your discussion tomorrow as you consider how to formulate your feedback and feasibility assessment to the OEC. Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Mobile: 1 310 383-8995 Skype: larisa.gurnick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review Survey Analysis - Initial.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 106848 bytes Desc: GNSO Review Survey Analysis - Initial.xlsx URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Sun Oct 18 23:08:38 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 23:08:38 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: Initial Survey Results - Feasibility Assessment of 36 Final Recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496FC1E9@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Because there is no remote participation, I will not be able to participate in this meeting. So I will share some of my initial thoughts for using the data to guide our suggestions regarding the recommendations. It seems to me that it might make sense to suggest approval of any recommendations that came out as a high priority, easy implementation and low cost: Rec. #'s 6, 8 & 26. If we add the rec's that were a high priority, medium difficulty & low cost: Rec. #'s 15, 16, & 27 If we add a high priority, medium difficulty and medium cost: Rec. # 2 If we add a medium priority with easy implementation and low cost: Rec. # 17 If we add medium priority, medium difficulty & low cost: # 1 & # 14 If we add a medium priority, medium difficulty and Medium cost: # 9 & #13 That would give us 12 recommendations that are at least medium priority, easy or medium difficult and low or medium cost. We could do a quick review of those as a group and see if anyone objects to suggesting that those 12 be implemented as soon as possible without further review. That would quickly reduce the number of recommendations down to 24. I have no idea whether this approach makes sense to others but if it does it would save us a little time. We could then look at the rest of the high recommendations that were either high difficulty and/or high cost and decide whether we would suggest they be implemented right away or in some delayed manner. We could then review the remaining medium recommendations, etc. Have a good meeting. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] on behalf of Larisa B. Gurnick [larisa.gurnick at icann.org] Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 1:29 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Initial Survey Results - Feasibility Assessment of 36 Final Recommendations Dear GNSO Review Working Party, Attached is the Initial Summary of Survey Results based on survey responses you submitted reflecting your views on feasibility of implementation of each of the 36 recommendations. The attached spread sheet has the following components: 1. Summary tab ? provides a composite for all recommendations, listing what appears to be the most prevalent view. 2. Comments only tab ? lists all the free-form comments submitted for each recommendation. 3. 1-36 tabs ? extract from Survey Monkey of statistics, by recommendation where you can see the entire statistical summary This information reflects 13 responses, of which 11 were complete and 2 incomplete. Please note that the number of responders to a given question may vary ? responders were free to answer only those questions that they wished. Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey and we hope that you find this information useful for your discussion tomorrow as you consider how to formulate your feedback and feasibility assessment to the OEC. Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Mobile: 1 310 383-8995 Skype: larisa.gurnick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Mon Oct 19 04:52:12 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 05:52:12 +0100 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] what room are we in this morning? Message-ID: <562476FC.9000502@acm.org> please? avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avri at acm.org Mon Oct 19 04:55:53 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 05:55:53 +0100 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Re: what room are we in this morning? In-Reply-To: <562476FC.9000502@acm.org> References: <562476FC.9000502@acm.org> Message-ID: <562477D9.2050601@acm.org> never mind, found it. Date: 19 October Time: 7:00-8:15 am IST Room: Liffey MR2 On 19-Oct-15 05:52, Avri Doria wrote: > please? > > avri > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From onovoa at Antel.com.uy Mon Oct 19 05:08:05 2015 From: onovoa at Antel.com.uy (Novoa, Osvaldo) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 05:08:05 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: Initial Survey Results - Feasibility Assessment of 36 Final Recommendations In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496FC1E9@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: ,<6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496FC1E9@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <9FA31318-E864-4D3C-9816-02D3498CE45D@Antel.com.uy> Chuck, I think your proposal is a very good idea and an easy way to begin our work Best regards, Osvaldo Enviado desde mi iPhone El 19 oct. 2015, a las 00:09, Gomes, Chuck > escribi?: Because there is no remote participation, I will not be able to participate in this meeting. So I will share some of my initial thoughts for using the data to guide our suggestions regarding the recommendations. It seems to me that it might make sense to suggest approval of any recommendations that came out as a high priority, easy implementation and low cost: Rec. #'s 6, 8 & 26. If we add the rec's that were a high priority, medium difficulty & low cost: Rec. #'s 15, 16, & 27 If we add a high priority, medium difficulty and medium cost: Rec. # 2 If we add a medium priority with easy implementation and low cost: Rec. # 17 If we add medium priority, medium difficulty & low cost: # 1 & # 14 If we add a medium priority, medium difficulty and Medium cost: # 9 & #13 That would give us 12 recommendations that are at least medium priority, easy or medium difficult and low or medium cost. We could do a quick review of those as a group and see if anyone objects to suggesting that those 12 be implemented as soon as possible without further review. That would quickly reduce the number of recommendations down to 24. I have no idea whether this approach makes sense to others but if it does it would save us a little time. We could then look at the rest of the high recommendations that were either high difficulty and/or high cost and decide whether we would suggest they be implemented right away or in some delayed manner. We could then review the remaining medium recommendations, etc. Have a good meeting. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] on behalf of Larisa B. Gurnick [larisa.gurnick at icann.org] Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 1:29 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Initial Survey Results - Feasibility Assessment of 36 Final Recommendations Dear GNSO Review Working Party, Attached is the Initial Summary of Survey Results based on survey responses you submitted reflecting your views on feasibility of implementation of each of the 36 recommendations. The attached spread sheet has the following components: 1. Summary tab ? provides a composite for all recommendations, listing what appears to be the most prevalent view. 2. Comments only tab ? lists all the free-form comments submitted for each recommendation. 3. 1-36 tabs ? extract from Survey Monkey of statistics, by recommendation where you can see the entire statistical summary This information reflects 13 responses, of which 11 were complete and 2 incomplete. Please note that the number of responders to a given question may vary ? responders were free to answer only those questions that they wished. Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey and we hope that you find this information useful for your discussion tomorrow as you consider how to formulate your feedback and feasibility assessment to the OEC. Larisa B. Gurnick Director, Strategic Initiatives Mobile: 1 310 383-8995 Skype: larisa.gurnick ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est? dirigido ?nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci?n que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Est? prohibida cualquier utilizaci?n, difusi?n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec?ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci?n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol?tica de Seguridad de la Informaci?n This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy. From charla.shambley at icann.org Mon Oct 19 06:05:36 2015 From: charla.shambley at icann.org (Charla Shambley) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 06:05:36 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Working Session - Starting Now Message-ID: <57ca8ae593f54a2dba2e9779b99478a9@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear Working Party - Your working session is in Liffey Meeting Room 2 which is located on the 1st floor. A light breakfast is available but coffee/water are not available. Thank you! Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-745-1943 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: