[gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23.

[Gomes, Chuck]

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 <jwolfe at wolfedomain.com<mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com>>
Cc: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>; Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>; Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>; William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>; Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net<mailto:sam at lanfranco.net>>; Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be<mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto: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 <jwolfe at wolfedomain.com<mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com>> 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<tel:513.746.2800%20X%201> OR CELL 513.238.4348<tel: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> [mailto: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 <cgomes at Verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at Verisign.com>>
Cc: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>; William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>; Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net<mailto:sam at lanfranco.net>>; Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be<mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto: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 <cgomes at Verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at Verisign.com>> 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<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<mailto: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 <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> 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 <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE<mailto:rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE>> 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: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20151014/9ab4ddb5/attachment.html>
-------------- 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: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20151014/9ab4ddb5/DraftPointsonWestlakeGoveranceGNSOReviewFinalReportsfromWPwithGomeseditson14Oct.docx>