From larisa.gurnick at icann.org Tue Sep 15 17:40:04 2015 From: larisa.gurnick at icann.org (Larisa B. Gurnick) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:40:04 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Final Report of the Review of the GNSO Message-ID: <3b2ea9c36ed543d99880a5ed3ca271f2@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear Jen and the GNSO Review Working Party, Attached is the Final Report of the GNSO Review. The below announcement along with the Final Report will be posted on the ICANN website shortly. Richard Westlake will provide a brief overview of the Final Report at the GNSO Review Working Party meeting scheduled for Wednesday, 16 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC. Please note that Section I: Report Summary offers a useful overview of Westlake's work, findings and recommendations, while the second document highlights changes in recommendations from the Draft Report to Final Report. Thank you for your substantial work and support of this important project during the past 14 months. We look forward to a productive implementation planning phase. Larisa Announcement: Independent Examiner Issues Final Report of Their Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization Westlake Governance Limited ("Westlake Governance"), the independent examiner for the review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO") has issued its final report. This marks an important milestone in ICANN's commitment to continuous improvement, accountability and transparency. After extensive consultation with the GNSO and the broader ICANN community, including a formal public comment process and ongoing engagement and participation of the GNSO Review Working Party, Westlake Governance formulated their conclusions. Westlake determined that the GNSO has made good progress in implementing a Working Group model as the foundation for consensus work, in restructuring the GNSO Council and in improving communications and coordination with the ICANN Board and other structures, among other improvements. Recognizing that organizational effectiveness is a process of continuous improvement, Westlake offers 36 recommendations in the areas of: participation & representation, continuous development, transparency and alignment with ICANN's future. In preparation for the eventual implementation of Board-approved recommendations, the GNSO Review Working Party will provide their input on feasibility, focusing on prioritization of recommendations and alignment of implementation with other improvements already planned or underway. The ICANN Board is expected to take action on the findings and recommendations in the early part of 2016, after consideration of all community input. What is the significance of the GNSO Review? The GNSO serves an important function - it is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. Based on direction from the Board, the purpose of the Review was to evaluate organizational effectiveness of the GNSO in accordance with the ICANN-provided objective and quantifiable criteria; acknowledge areas that are working well, identify areas that need improvement and propose needed changes. This review, like reviews of other structures within ICANN, is mandated by ICANN's Bylaws. The Organizational Effectiveness Committee of the Board (previously the Structural Improvements Committee) is responsible for review and oversight of policies relating to ICANN's ongoing organizational review process. "This Review is significant for a number of reasons. The process piloted several improvements, offering important lessons that will be incorporated into upcoming Reviews. The Final Report comes at a time of pivotal change and transformation at ICANN. The Community's views along with the examiner's insights will inform and contribute to enhanced organizational effectiveness of ICANN structures and ICANN as a whole," commented Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Chair of the Organizational Effectiveness Committee. How is the GNSO Community involved? During the course of the last 14 months, Westlake Governance conducted research, analyzed data and evaluated effectiveness of prior review recommendations working closely with the GNSO Review Working Party. The 20-member GNSO Review Working Party representing the diversity of the GNSO Community was designated by the GNSO Council as a liaison between the GNSO, the Independent Examiner and the ICANN Board. Under the leadership of Jen Wolfe, this group has represented the voice of the GNSO community throughout the Review, in an effort that introduced several important Review process improvements. What does "continuous improvement" mean? With Reviews as a tool to inspire a culture of continuous improvement, the GNSO Review Working Party will have a pivotal role in helping prioritize recommendations and ensuring a shared understanding of what an "effective" or "successful" implementation would look like. The independent review process fostered diverse views on how GNSO should be structured for the future and these discussions are expected to provide useful input into GNSO's implementation work. Whether structural changes are needed and when such changes should be considered will be topics for discussion after the conclusion of the Review process, possibly during the implementation planning. GNSO Review by the Numbers [cid:image002.png at 01D0ECB1.7049B6B0] Additional information For additional information, please visit: GNSO Review web site GNSO Review Working Space Frequently Asked Questions & Answers for the GNSO Review GNSO web site Organizational Reviews Information 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: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 31123 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Final Report of Review of Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)-September 2015.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2086589 bytes Desc: Final Report of Review of Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)-September 2015.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review Recommendations - changes from Draft to Final Report.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 125357 bytes Desc: GNSO Review Recommendations - changes from Draft to Final Report.pdf URL: From JStandiford at web.com Tue Sep 15 17:49:50 2015 From: JStandiford at web.com (Jennifer Gore Standiford) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:49:50 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: Final Report of the Review of the GNSO In-Reply-To: <3b2ea9c36ed543d99880a5ed3ca271f2@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <3b2ea9c36ed543d99880a5ed3ca271f2@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: Thank you Larisa. Could someone please forward me the call details for Wednesday Sept. 16 @ 14:00 UTC. Jennifer Jennifer Gore Standiford Policy Director Web.com 12808 Gran Bay Parkway, West | Jacksonville, FL 32258 Office: 904. 680-6919| Cell: 904. 401-4347 [cid:image003.png at 01CFD6B5.902BADC0] From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 1:40 PM To: Jen Wolfe (jwolfe at wolfedomain.com); gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Final Report of the Review of the GNSO Dear Jen and the GNSO Review Working Party, Attached is the Final Report of the GNSO Review. The below announcement along with the Final Report will be posted on the ICANN website shortly. Richard Westlake will provide a brief overview of the Final Report at the GNSO Review Working Party meeting scheduled for Wednesday, 16 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC. Please note that Section I: Report Summary offers a useful overview of Westlake's work, findings and recommendations, while the second document highlights changes in recommendations from the Draft Report to Final Report. Thank you for your substantial work and support of this important project during the past 14 months. We look forward to a productive implementation planning phase. Larisa Announcement: Independent Examiner Issues Final Report of Their Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization Westlake Governance Limited ("Westlake Governance"), the independent examiner for the review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO") has issued its final report. This marks an important milestone in ICANN's commitment to continuous improvement, accountability and transparency. After extensive consultation with the GNSO and the broader ICANN community, including a formal public comment process and ongoing engagement and participation of the GNSO Review Working Party, Westlake Governance formulated their conclusions. Westlake determined that the GNSO has made good progress in implementing a Working Group model as the foundation for consensus work, in restructuring the GNSO Council and in improving communications and coordination with the ICANN Board and other structures, among other improvements. Recognizing that organizational effectiveness is a process of continuous improvement, Westlake offers 36 recommendations in the areas of: participation & representation, continuous development, transparency and alignment with ICANN's future. In preparation for the eventual implementation of Board-approved recommendations, the GNSO Review Working Party will provide their input on feasibility, focusing on prioritization of recommendations and alignment of implementation with other improvements already planned or underway. The ICANN Board is expected to take action on the findings and recommendations in the early part of 2016, after consideration of all community input. What is the significance of the GNSO Review? The GNSO serves an important function - it is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. Based on direction from the Board, the purpose of the Review was to evaluate organizational effectiveness of the GNSO in accordance with the ICANN-provided objective and quantifiable criteria; acknowledge areas that are working well, identify areas that need improvement and propose needed changes. This review, like reviews of other structures within ICANN, is mandated by ICANN's Bylaws. The Organizational Effectiveness Committee of the Board (previously the Structural Improvements Committee) is responsible for review and oversight of policies relating to ICANN's ongoing organizational review process. "This Review is significant for a number of reasons. The process piloted several improvements, offering important lessons that will be incorporated into upcoming Reviews. The Final Report comes at a time of pivotal change and transformation at ICANN. The Community's views along with the examiner's insights will inform and contribute to enhanced organizational effectiveness of ICANN structures and ICANN as a whole," commented Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Chair of the Organizational Effectiveness Committee. How is the GNSO Community involved? During the course of the last 14 months, Westlake Governance conducted research, analyzed data and evaluated effectiveness of prior review recommendations working closely with the GNSO Review Working Party. The 20-member GNSO Review Working Party representing the diversity of the GNSO Community was designated by the GNSO Council as a liaison between the GNSO, the Independent Examiner and the ICANN Board. Under the leadership of Jen Wolfe, this group has represented the voice of the GNSO community throughout the Review, in an effort that introduced several important Review process improvements. What does "continuous improvement" mean? With Reviews as a tool to inspire a culture of continuous improvement, the GNSO Review Working Party will have a pivotal role in helping prioritize recommendations and ensuring a shared understanding of what an "effective" or "successful" implementation would look like. The independent review process fostered diverse views on how GNSO should be structured for the future and these discussions are expected to provide useful input into GNSO's implementation work. Whether structural changes are needed and when such changes should be considered will be topics for discussion after the conclusion of the Review process, possibly during the implementation planning. GNSO Review by the Numbers [cid:image002.png at 01D0ECB1.7049B6B0] Additional information For additional information, please visit: GNSO Review web site GNSO Review Working Space Frequently Asked Questions & Answers for the GNSO Review GNSO web site Organizational Reviews Information 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: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 4321 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 31123 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From charla.shambley at icann.org Wed Sep 16 14:21:27 2015 From: charla.shambley at icann.org (Charla Shambley) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:21:27 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: Reminder Meeting Invitation: meeting of GNSO Review Working Party Wednesday, 16 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC References: Message-ID: <7d99a5ef753a4e9bb560f6ee33373e1b@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> If you haven't joined already, please note that the Working Party call with Westlake has started (remote participation details are listed below). Richard Westlake and Colin Jackson are on the call discussing the Final Report that was recently posted. From: owner-ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nathalie Peregrine Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 4:31 AM To: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: [ntfy-gnso-review-dt] Reminder Meeting Invitation: meeting of GNSO Review Working Party Wednesday, 16 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC Dear all, The next meeting of the GNSO Review Working Party is scheduled for Wednesday, 16 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC for 1 hour. 07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET, +1 00:00 Sydney For other places:http://tinyurl.com/q5oh3y5 Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/gnso-review/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ The dial-in details are below - please let me know if you require a dial-out. Please confirm your dial-out requests to GNSO Secretariats gnso-secs at icann.org _________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: GNSO REVIEW For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA BANGALORE: 91-80-61275204 INDIA MUMBAI: 91-22-61501629 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Thank you, Terri Agnew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5511 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jwolfe at wolfedomain.com Wed Sep 16 15:02:36 2015 From: jwolfe at wolfedomain.com (Jen Wolfe) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:02:36 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: Reminder Meeting Invitation: meeting of GNSO Review Working Party Wednesday, 16 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <7d99a5ef753a4e9bb560f6ee33373e1b@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <7d99a5ef753a4e9bb560f6ee33373e1b@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: Thank you everyone for the robust conversation today. I am sorry we didn't have time to discuss a response and next steps toward implementation, but thought it was important to let everyone speak on these important issues. Charla will send out a Doodle Poll to schedule a meeting as soon as possible to formulate a written response to the OEC prior to the presentation of the Final Report on September 28th. We will also schedule a call after September 28th to discuss the other recommendations in order to prioritize and make recommendations to the OEC on implementation. Thank you again for your time today and for your commitment to schedule another call and formulate a response within the next week. With kindest regards, 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 Charla Shambley Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 10:21 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: Reminder Meeting Invitation: meeting of GNSO Review Working Party Wednesday, 16 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC If you haven't joined already, please note that the Working Party call with Westlake has started (remote participation details are listed below). Richard Westlake and Colin Jackson are on the call discussing the Final Report that was recently posted. From: owner-ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nathalie Peregrine Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 4:31 AM To: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: [ntfy-gnso-review-dt] Reminder Meeting Invitation: meeting of GNSO Review Working Party Wednesday, 16 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC Dear all, The next meeting of the GNSO Review Working Party is scheduled for Wednesday, 16 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC for 1 hour. 07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET, +1 00:00 Sydney For other places:http://tinyurl.com/q5oh3y5 Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/gnso-review/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ The dial-in details are below - please let me know if you require a dial-out. Please confirm your dial-out requests to GNSO Secretariats gnso-secs at icann.org _________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: GNSO REVIEW For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA BANGALORE: 91-80-61275204 INDIA MUMBAI: 91-22-61501629 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Thank you, Terri Agnew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From charla.shambley at icann.org Wed Sep 16 15:35:48 2015 From: charla.shambley at icann.org (Charla Shambley) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:35:48 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Doodle Polls for Two Upcoming Calls Message-ID: <300c9f0b5f304e1b869b17c1211aa306@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear GNSO Review Working Party - I have set up two doodle polls per the discussion on today's call. Doodle Poll #1 - Discuss formulating written response to OEC prior to the presentation scheduled on 28 September. Doodle Poll #2 - Discuss recommendations/prioritize and made recommendations on implementation. I will close these polls by 15:00 UTC on Friday, 18 September, so that an invitation can be sent out before the weekend. Regards, Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-578-8921 From: Jen Wolfe [mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 8:03 AM To: Charla Shambley; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: Reminder Meeting Invitation: meeting of GNSO Review Working Party Wednesday, 16 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC Thank you everyone for the robust conversation today. I am sorry we didn't have time to discuss a response and next steps toward implementation, but thought it was important to let everyone speak on these important issues. Charla will send out a Doodle Poll to schedule a meeting as soon as possible to formulate a written response to the OEC prior to the presentation of the Final Report on September 28th. We will also schedule a call after September 28th to discuss the other recommendations in order to prioritize and make recommendations to the OEC on implementation. Thank you again for your time today and for your commitment to schedule another call and formulate a response within the next week. With kindest regards, 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 Charla Shambley Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 10:21 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: Reminder Meeting Invitation: meeting of GNSO Review Working Party Wednesday, 16 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC If you haven't joined already, please note that the Working Party call with Westlake has started (remote participation details are listed below). Richard Westlake and Colin Jackson are on the call discussing the Final Report that was recently posted. From: owner-ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nathalie Peregrine Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 4:31 AM To: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: [ntfy-gnso-review-dt] Reminder Meeting Invitation: meeting of GNSO Review Working Party Wednesday, 16 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC Dear all, The next meeting of the GNSO Review Working Party is scheduled for Wednesday, 16 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC for 1 hour. 07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET, +1 00:00 Sydney For other places:http://tinyurl.com/q5oh3y5 Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/gnso-review/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ The dial-in details are below - please let me know if you require a dial-out. Please confirm your dial-out requests to GNSO Secretariats gnso-secs at icann.org _________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: GNSO REVIEW For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA BANGALORE: 91-80-61275204 INDIA MUMBAI: 91-22-61501629 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Thank you, Terri Agnew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5511 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Wed Sep 16 19:17:33 2015 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:17:33 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] MP3 recording GNSO Review Working Party teleconference 16th September 2015 14:00UTC Message-ID: Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Review Working Party teleconference held on Wednesday, 16 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-16sep15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Jennifer Wolfe Klaus Stoll Chuck Gomes Avri Doria Bill Drake Rafik Dammak Arun Sukumar Robin Gross Edward Morris Osvaldo Novoa Stefania Milan Observer: Amr Elsadr Apologies: none Guest Speakers: Richard Westlake Colin Jackson ICANN Staff: Mary Wong Marika Konings Lars Hoffman Larisa Gurnick Charla Shambley Karen Mulberry Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Adobe Chat transcript: Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, Welcome to the GNSO Review Working Party on the 16 September 2015 Amr Elsadr:Hi..., I am no longer a member of the working party. I hope it's alright that I am participating in today's call. Jen Wolfe:Yes, of course you are welcome to join! Amr Elsadr:Thanks Jen. Chuck Gomes:Sorry I am late. Connectivity problems. Nathalie Peregrine:Stefania Milan has joined he call Chuck Gomes:Should we hold our questions until later? Chuck Gomes:I have a question re. Rec. 23 Jen Wolfe:Let's hold questions until Richard finishes his presentation and then we can start the questions. Avri Doria:Would RySG Interenst Groups be counted as Cs? Avri Doria:Or is 23 only aimed solely at the NCSG? Larisa Gurnick:The document Richard is referencing will be available for display and will be posted on the wiki shortly. Bill Drake:much of this content comes out of the blue Robin Gross:not exactly a bottom-up process at work here. Bill Drake:We never heard of it Avri Doria:a parting 'surprise' Amr Elsadr:[QUESTION] Apart from rec #23, why wasn't the WP involved in reviewing any of the public comments? Wouldn't have been helpful for Westlake to have representatives of the community being involved in the public comment review, similar to GNSO working groups? Avri Doria:So Westlake is suggesting we unwind the last SG reforms. Bill Drake:inter alia Chuck Gomes:It seems so Avri. Avri Doria:They CSG refused to accept the last reform. I guess they picked correctly? Avri Doria:NCSg must learn from the CSG. Larisa Gurnick:A GNSO Review Working Party meeting originally scheduled for July and then rescheduled for early August was cancelled due to low participation. Bill Drake:apparently we must adopt the CSG model Avri Doria:or we musr follw their example and refuse Avri Doria:. Bill Drake:and stop pretending there is something called civil society in ICANN Amr Elsadr:@Avri: Is it an option for the NCSG to not accept the review? Last time, the review was initiated by the GNSO. Not so this time, correct? Robin Gross:This is shockingly wrong. Avri Doria:hey the CSG refused last time. And it worked for them. Robin Gross:Westlake seems to fundamentally misunderstand the GNSO model. That's a big problem. Bill Drake:and history Bill Drake:reality Bill Drake:CS Avri Doria:hey if i was a subtype or Registry, i would demand a constituency now. Arun Sukumar:Hi, it's concerning that terms like "cultural diversity" have been so loosely applied to justify Rec #23 - and this is from someone who cannot agree more on the importance of regiona/geo diversity Nathalie Peregrine:Osvaldo Novoa has joined the call Amr Elsadr:Completely agree with Chuck, and this could have not been "missed" if the WP members were involved in the public comments review. Bill Drake:that is a fundamentally flawed argument Robin Gross:The breakdown in the non-contracted parties house is EQUAL seats to the commercial and non-commercial stakeholders. It is NOT about constituencies. Westlake has failed to understand this key point. Bill Drake:people don't join a constituency because it has Council seats Avri Doria:so many thing that might infringe the politeness rule are on the tip of my fingers. Avri Doria:Bill, some do. for that and for travel support. Bill Drake:well maybe. not us Amr Elsadr:@Chuck: +1 Robin Gross:Agree with Chuck. Robin Gross:what is the point in engaging with actual stakeholders, if Westlake is unwilling to learn about its mistakes? What are we here for? Bill Drake:total misconstruction Avri Doria:In the NCSG, getting seats requires running for elections, and the 'other C' did not put up any candidates. that is one way to not end up with seats. Nathalie Peregrine:Klaus Stoll has joined the call Klaus Stoll:Sorry to be so late. technical problems. Chuck Gomes:How would Council seats be allocated equally by constituency? Avri Doria:everytime a new constituency is formed you subdivide the votes n-ways. Amr Elsadr:Sure. Robin Gross:Thanks, Bill, for expressing many of our frustrations with this sandbagging. Avri Doria:it this is accepted, i will go into the business of helping people start constituencies. the more the merrier. Chuck Gomes:@ Richard: What is equal footing? Edward Morris (GNSO Council / NCSG):Factual error number 1: "board agreed, based upon evidence from the NCSG". The Board conducted an independent evaluation of the Cyber Cafe application. Please cite your fact the advice was based upon NCSG advice. Avri Doria:we need 7 constituencies Robin Gross:NCSG operates as a stakeholder group. That is different than CSG, which is the constituency model. Westlake needs to understand this key issue. Bill Drake:let's break up NCUC into 15 constituencies and demand Council seats for each Avri Doria:and the last review mandated stakeholder groups. we complied. Edward Morris (GNSO Council / NCSG):Factual error number 2: "a former Chair and current NCSG Executiv Committee member". This refers to Milton Mueller, who is an EX OFFICIO participant of the NCUC EC. He is not a voting member of the EC. Robin Gross:The logic of Westlake's argument would lead to breaking NCUC into 15 constituencies to demand seats, indeed. It is so NOT THOUGHT THROUGH.... Avri Doria:2.5 people per seat? Bill Drake:Even the SIC understood the problem in 2011, that's why they didn't do it Avri Doria:it is a pity, becasue it colors some of the good recommendations. Bill Drake:Reality doesn't matter Amr Edward Morris (GNSO Council / NCSG):Factual error number 3: "in practice, the NCUC's view has largely won out". THere is no NCUC view on constituency vs. stakeholder group powers.. There is a diversity of views within the NCUC. I , for example, are far more Constituency friendly than the unelected ex-officio cited in the study. Avri Doria:and in the NCSG election none of the other constituency even pput up candidates. how do they expect to get elected. Chuck Gomes:@ Jenn: We as a working team may want to develop a statement to the SIC regarding Rec. 23. Robin Gross:This is an example of how ICANN staff uses independent contractors to do its dirty work (and bypas a bottom-up process). Jen Wolfe:Agree, that's what we can discuss after we finish up on this point. Avri Doria:and we should carefully review aall the other recommendations for other fault lines. Bill Drake:@Chuck I believe a team statement would be in order Edward Morris (GNSO Council / NCSG):Factual error number 4: "Only one NPOC member has ever held a position on the GNSO Council". Not true. Carlos Guttierez (2015-2016) and Klaus Stoll (2013-2014) are both GNSO Councilors that are NPOC members. Bill Drake:Facts smacts Amr Elsadr:Constituency members vote along with everybody else. Saying that constituencies don't have a voice is not accurate. Chuck Gomes:I think we should be cautious about blaming staff for this outcome. If that indeed happened that would be bad but we don't know that that happened. Bill Drake:presumably since Council seats drives membership growth then there should have been growth spurts in the period of those two Councilors Avri Doria:Carlos is a NCA, though member of NPOC, he was not elected by NCSG. Avri Doria:Klaus was the only NPOC who ran and got a seat. i think he was the one one who ran. Amr Elsadr:Klaus ran, but was ultimately appointed by the NCSG PC. Avri Doria:... the only one to run .. Edward Morris (GNSO Council / NCSG):True Avri but Westlake states that only one NPOC member has ever served on Council. THat simply is incorrect. Robin Gross:Question: How much are these recommendations costing ICANN (Internet users)? Amr Elsadr:Other NPOC members who served on the council include Carlos, Debbie and Amber. Chuck Gomes:Rec. 23 is the only rec. I had a significant concern with. Avri Doria:true. just trying to be precise with the facts. Something I think is useful in this sort of review. Edward Morris (GNSO Council / NCSG):@Robin. I asked for ICANN to release the contract. THey released small portions but would not divulge anything in terms of cost. Amr Elsadr:Debbie and Amber were (if I am not mistaken) appointed by the board. Amr Elsadr:Carlos appointed by the NomCom. Bill Drake:there is no traffic on their mail list, perhaps because there are no members to send it Chuck Gomes:Any statement that the Working Party develops should be submitted to the OEC before 28 Sep. Amr Elsadr:Fully agree with Rafik. Bill Drake:do I really have to learn to say OEC instead of SIC? Amr Elsadr:@Chuck: Would a statement by the WP be a sort of review and comment on the Westlake report? Can the WP pull this off on such short notice? Chuck Gomes:@ Bill: I had to think twice before figuring out what OEC was. Avri Doria:the committee formerly know as SIC Amr Elsadr:"the committee formerly know as SIC". I like that. :) Bill Drake:Organizational Effectiveness on parade here Bill Drake:this is just wrong Avri Doria:tis was less a GNSO review that a NCSG review Arun Sukumar:Well said, Rafik. I'm a new entrant to NCSG, and geographical diversity in ICANN is a big concern, but the sheer number of participants in the NCSG elections from all parts of the world was overwhelming. Bill Drake:please look at the website and see who are members are Edward Morris (GNSO Council / NCSG):NCUC has 1) more and 2) larger members than NPOC. Edward Morris (GNSO Council / NCSG):From the Heritage Foundation to the ACLU to EFF... Avri Doria:it is too late. they are done. time for us to figure out how to repsond. Bill Drake:some are small, some are large, we explained this in our last 10 page corrective letter Edward Morris (GNSO Council / NCSG):Many NPOC organizations exist ONLY on paper. Bill Drake:utter nonsense Arun Sukumar:@richard: this is a hypothesis right? there is a weighted voting system Klaus Stoll 2:Please let me know which! I resent rumors without facts. Robin Gross:Westlake just doesn't understand how things work. This is a competency problem. Edward Morris (GNSO Council / NCSG):NCUC member the American Civil Liberties Union has 565,000 members. One NCUC member. Edward Morris (GNSO Council / NCSG):Will do Klaus. Bill Drake:they don't count Ed Klaus Stoll 2:Thanks! Bill Drake:EFF doesn't count Bill Drake:CDT doesnt count Bill Drake:and so on Robin Gross:APC is pretty big. Library of Alexandria is pretty big. RedCross is in NCUC too. What does it take for Westlake to have a revised view? Edward Morris (GNSO Council / NCSG):Heritage? Robin Gross:Westlake has no criteria. This is purely subjective nonsense. Chuck Gomes:I think we need a Working Party call as soon as possible to work on a plan to develop a response to the Recs. Chuck Gomes:In my opinion, it would be sufficient to focus on Rec. 23. Avri Doria:btw, another NCUC memebr APC, the organization I am representing is composed of 46 other grassroot organizations. Bill Drake:+1 Chuck just what we all need right now Bill Drake:Avri for that to matter one would have to know something about the groups being characterized Bill Drake:time no, commitment yes Chuck Gomes:Well said Bill. :) Rafik:yes Bill Drake:thank you Jen for managing this well Robin Gross:What is the cost of these recommendations? Or is that a secret? Bill Drake:it is a secret Robin Amr Elsadr:@Bill: +1. Thanks Jen, and appreciate being allowed to participate and speak today. Chuck Gomes:It is unfortunate that all the good work that Westlake did is being overshadowed by one rec. Robin Gross:I don't have audio, but I'd like my question answered. Bill Drake:good value for registrant money Arun Sukumar:thanks all for this illuminating call Larisa Gurnick:The cost is a contractual matter. Bill Drake::-) Robin Gross:does that mean it is a secret, Larisa? Rafik:what is the cost of volunteers time Bill Drake:going to encourage my undergrads to bid on ICANN contracts Chuck Gomes:Thanks all. Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. Larisa Gurnick:Thank you all Rafik:bye Robin Gross:no answer to my question on what we are paying for these recommendations. Avri Doria:thanks. bye. glad thsi part is over. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From charla.shambley at icann.org Thu Sep 17 22:59:03 2015 From: charla.shambley at icann.org (Charla Shambley) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 22:59:03 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review - Doodle Polls for Two Upcoming Calls In-Reply-To: <300c9f0b5f304e1b869b17c1211aa306@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <300c9f0b5f304e1b869b17c1211aa306@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <668e22d3b64d41a7b379d600a761a2c0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Friendly reminder that I will be closing the doodle poll by 15:00 UTC tomorrow, 18 September. If you haven't already done so, please click on the links below and provide your availability for the two upcoming GNSO Review calls. Thank you! From: Charla Shambley Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 8:36 AM To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: GNSO Review - Doodle Polls for Two Upcoming Calls Importance: High Dear GNSO Review Working Party - I have set up two doodle polls per the discussion on today's call. Doodle Poll #1 - Discuss formulating written response to OEC prior to the presentation scheduled on 28 September. Doodle Poll #2 - Discuss recommendations/prioritize and made recommendations on implementation. I will close these polls by 15:00 UTC on Friday, 18 September, so that an invitation can be sent out before the weekend. Regards, Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-578-8921 From: Jen Wolfe [mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 8:03 AM To: Charla Shambley; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: RE: Reminder Meeting Invitation: meeting of GNSO Review Working Party Wednesday, 16 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC Thank you everyone for the robust conversation today. I am sorry we didn't have time to discuss a response and next steps toward implementation, but thought it was important to let everyone speak on these important issues. Charla will send out a Doodle Poll to schedule a meeting as soon as possible to formulate a written response to the OEC prior to the presentation of the Final Report on September 28th. We will also schedule a call after September 28th to discuss the other recommendations in order to prioritize and make recommendations to the OEC on implementation. Thank you again for your time today and for your commitment to schedule another call and formulate a response within the next week. With kindest regards, 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 Charla Shambley Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 10:21 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: Reminder Meeting Invitation: meeting of GNSO Review Working Party Wednesday, 16 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC If you haven't joined already, please note that the Working Party call with Westlake has started (remote participation details are listed below). Richard Westlake and Colin Jackson are on the call discussing the Final Report that was recently posted. From: owner-ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nathalie Peregrine Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 4:31 AM To: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: [ntfy-gnso-review-dt] Reminder Meeting Invitation: meeting of GNSO Review Working Party Wednesday, 16 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC Dear all, The next meeting of the GNSO Review Working Party is scheduled for Wednesday, 16 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC for 1 hour. 07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET, +1 00:00 Sydney For other places:http://tinyurl.com/q5oh3y5 Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/gnso-review/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ The dial-in details are below - please let me know if you require a dial-out. Please confirm your dial-out requests to GNSO Secretariats gnso-secs at icann.org _________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: GNSO REVIEW For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA BANGALORE: 91-80-61275204 INDIA MUMBAI: 91-22-61501629 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Thank you, Terri Agnew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5511 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Thu Sep 17 23:18:46 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 23:18:46 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] =?Windows-1252?Q?GNSO_Review_Working_Party_Draft_Statement_on_Westlake_Go?= =?Windows-1252?Q?verance=92s_Final_GNSO_Review_Report?= Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496B334D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> I took a first crack at possible Working Party comments on Westlake's Recommendation 23 that we discussed in most of our meeting yesterday. I have to confess that I am not real satisfied with my draft but I hope that it will facilitate our efforts to create one even if we ignore mine and start from scratch. If we do develop comments, I think that it would be important for us to try to get unanimous approval by Working Team members who participate in writing and approving the comments or, if we cannot do that, at least provide an opportunity for minority statements. Open and free criticism is welcome including from those in the NPOC like Klaus. Chuck -------------- 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 Report.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 18884 bytes Desc: Draft Points on Westlake Goverance GNSO Review Final Report.docx URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Sep 17 23:19:57 2015 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 19:19:57 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review - Doodle Polls for Two Upcoming Calls In-Reply-To: <668e22d3b64d41a7b379d600a761a2c0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <300c9f0b5f304e1b869b17c1211aa306@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <668e22d3b64d41a7b379d600a761a2c0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <55FB4A9D.6040908@mail.utoronto.ca> Please accept my belated regrets for missing the last meeting. I have read the transcript. I agree with Chuck's intervention. I also support my colleagues Bill and Rafik. Facts are important. It is worth taking the time to get them correct. If recommendation 23 was something the consultants thought about long and hard 6 months ago, I am surprised it did not appear in the public version that was presented for comments. I would also like to reiterate my concerns, expressed in my first comments on the draft report, that entertaining informal and anonymous chats with folks while attending meetings is not, in my opinion, an appropriate way to do an independent review of a multi-stakeholder organization that is attempting to reach the next level of accountability and maturity. We need sound methodology and transparency, in my view, not lobbying. I apologize if this sounds harsh, but really it is important for global internet governance that ICANN succeed, and that it grows up a bit. Kind regards Stephanie On 2015-09-17 18:59, Charla Shambley wrote: > > Friendly reminder that I will be closing the doodle poll by 15:00 UTC > tomorrow, 18 September. If you haven?t already done so, please click > on the links below and provide your availability for the two upcoming > GNSO Review calls. Thank you! > > *From:*Charla Shambley > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 16, 2015 8:36 AM > *To:* 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > *Subject:* GNSO Review - Doodle Polls for Two Upcoming Calls > *Importance:* High > > Dear GNSO Review Working Party ? > > I have set up two doodle polls per the discussion on today?s call. > > Doodle Poll #1 ? Discuss > formulating written response to OEC prior to the presentation > scheduled on 28 September. > > Doodle Poll #2 ? Discuss > recommendations/prioritize and made recommendations on implementation. > > I will close these polls by 15:00 UTC on Friday, 18 September, so that > an invitation can be sent out before the weekend. > > Regards, > > Charla > > Charla K. Shambley > > Strategic Initiatives Program Manager > > ICANN > > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > > Los Angeles, CA 90094 > > 310-578-8921 > > *From:*Jen Wolfe [mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 16, 2015 8:03 AM > *To:* Charla Shambley; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > *Subject:* RE: Reminder Meeting Invitation: meeting of GNSO Review > Working Party Wednesday, 16 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC > > Thank you everyone for the robust conversation today. I am sorry we > didn?t have time to discuss a response and next steps toward > implementation, but thought it was important to let everyone speak on > these important issues. > > Charla will send out a Doodle Poll to schedule a meeting as soon as > possible to formulate a written response to the OEC prior to the > presentation of the Final Report on September 28^th . We will also > schedule a call after September 28^th to discuss the other > recommendations in order to prioritize and make recommendations to the > OEC on implementation. > > Thank you again for your time today and for your commitment to > schedule another call and formulate a response within the next week. > > With kindest regards, > > 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 *Charla Shambley > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 16, 2015 10:21 AM > *To:* gnso-review-dt at icann.org > *Subject:* [gnso-review-dt] FW: Reminder Meeting Invitation: meeting > of GNSO Review Working Party Wednesday, 16 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC > > If you haven?t joined already, please note that the Working Party call > with Westlake has started (remote participation details are listed > below). Richard Westlake and Colin Jackson are on the call discussing > the Final Report that was recently posted. > > *From:*owner-ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > > [mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Nathalie > Peregrine > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 15, 2015 4:31 AM > *To:* ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org > *Cc:* gnso-secs at icann.org > *Subject:* [ntfy-gnso-review-dt] Reminder Meeting Invitation: meeting > of GNSO Review Working Party Wednesday, 16 September 2015 at 14:00 UTC > > Dear all, > > The next meeting of the *GNSO Review Working Party *is scheduled for > *Wednesday, 16 September** 2015 at **14:00 UTC for 1 hour.* > > 07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET, +1 00:00 Sydney > > For other places:*http://tinyurl.com/q5oh3y5* > > ** > > *Adobe Connect_ WITH AUDIO enabled: > _*https://icann.adobeconnect.com/gnso-review/ > > The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO > Master Calendar page: > http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ > > _ > > _The dial-in details are below ? please let me know if you require a > dial-out. > > *Please confirm your dial-out requests to GNSO Secretariats* > > gnso-secs at icann.org > > _________________________________________________________________________ > > Participant passcode: GNSO REVIEW > > For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. > ____________________________________________________________________________ > > *Dial in numbers:* > > *Country* > > > > > > *Toll Numbers* > > > > *Freephone/ > Toll Free Number* > > > > > > > ARGENTINA > > > > > > > > 0800-777-0519 > > AUSTRALIA > > > > ADELAIDE: > > > > 61-8-8121-4842 > > > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > > > BRISBANE: > > > > 61-7-3102-0944 > > > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > > > CANBERRA: > > > > 61-2-6100-1944 > > > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > > > MELBOURNE: > > > > 61-3-9010-7713 > > > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > > > PERTH: > > > > 61-8-9467-5223 > > > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > > > SYDNEY: > > > > 61-2-8205-8129 > > > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRIA > > > > > > 43-1-92-81-113 > > > > 0800-005-259 > > BELGIUM > > > > > > 32-2-400-9861 > > > > 0800-3-8795 > > BRAZIL > > > > > > 55-11-3958-0779 > > > > 0800-7610651 > > CHILE > > > > > > > > 1230-020-2863 > > CHINA > > > > CHINA A: > > > > 86-400-810-4789 > > > > 10800-712-1670 > > CHINA > > > > CHINA B: > > > > 86-400-810-4789 > > > > 10800-120-1670 > > COLOMBIA > > > > > > > > 01800-9-156474 > > CROATIA > > > > > > > > 080-08-06-309 > > CZECH REPUBLIC > > > > > > 420-2-25-98-56-64 > > > > 800-700-177 > > DENMARK > > > > > > 45-7014-0284 > > > > 8088-8324 > > ESTONIA > > > > > > > > 800-011-1093 > > FINLAND > > > > > > 358-9-5424-7162 > > > > 0-800-9-14610 > > FRANCE > > > > LYON: > > > > 33-4-26-69-12-85 > > > > 080-511-1496 > > FRANCE > > > > MARSEILLE: > > > > 33-4-86-06-00-85 > > > > 080-511-1496 > > FRANCE > > > > PARIS: > > > > 33-1-70-70-60-72 > > > > 080-511-1496 > > GERMANY > > > > > > 49-69-2222-20362 > > > > 0800-664-4247 > > GREECE > > > > > > 30-80-1-100-0687 > > > > 00800-12-7312 > > HONG KONG > > > > > > 852-3001-3863 > > > > 800-962-856 > > HUNGARY > > > > > > 36-1-700-8856 > > > > 06-800-12755 > > INDIA > > > > BANGALORE: > > > > 91-80-61275204 > > > > INDIA > > > > MUMBAI: > > > > 91-22-61501629 > > > > INDIA > > > > INDIA A: > > > > > > 000-800-852-1268 > > INDIA > > > > INDIA B: > > > > > > 000-800-001-6305 > > INDIA > > > > INDIA C: > > > > > > 1800-300-00491 > > INDONESIA > > > > > > > > 001-803-011-3982 > > IRELAND > > > > > > 353-1-246-7646 > > > > 1800-992-368 > > ISRAEL > > > > > > > > 1-80-9216162 > > ITALY > > > > MILAN: > > > > 39-02-3600-6007 > > > > 800-986-383 > > ITALY > > > > ROME: > > > > 39-06-8751-6018 > > > > 800-986-383 > > ITALY > > > > TORINO: > > > > 39-011-510-0118 > > > > 800-986-383 > > JAPAN > > > > OSAKA: > > > > 81-6-7878-2631 > > > > 0066-33-132439 > > JAPAN > > > > TOKYO: > > > > 81-3-6868-2631 > > > > 0066-33-132439 > > LATVIA > > > > > > > > 8000-3185 > > LUXEMBOURG > > > > > > 352-27-000-1364 > > > > 8002-9246 > > MALAYSIA > > > > > > > > 1-800-81-3065 > > MEXICO > > > > GUADALAJARA (JAL): > > > > 52-33-3208-7310 > > > > 001-866-376-9696 > > MEXICO > > > > MEXICO CITY: > > > > 52-55-5062-9110 > > > > 001-866-376-9696 > > MEXICO > > > > MONTERREY: > > > > 52-81-2482-0610 > > > > 001-866-376-9696 > > NETHERLANDS > > > > > > 31-20-718-8588 > > > > 0800-023-4378 > > NEW ZEALAND > > > > > > 64-9-970-4771 > > > > 0800-447-722 > > NORWAY > > > > > > 47-21-590-062 > > > > 800-15157 > > PANAMA > > > > > > > > 011-001-800-5072065 > > PERU > > > > > > > > 0800-53713 > > PHILIPPINES > > > > > > 63-2-858-3716 > > > > 1800-111-42453 > > POLAND > > > > > > > > 00-800-1212572 > > PORTUGAL > > > > > > > > 8008-14052 > > ROMANIA > > > > > > 40-31-630-01-79 > > > > RUSSIA > > > > > > > > 8-10-8002-0144011 > > SAUDI ARABIA > > > > > > > > 800-8-110087 > > SINGAPORE > > > > > > 65-6883-9230 > > > > 800-120-4663 > > SLOVAK REPUBLIC > > > > > > 421-2-322-422-25 > > > > 0800-002066 > > SOUTH AFRICA > > > > > > > > 080-09-80414 > > SOUTH KOREA > > > > > > 82-2-6744-1083 > > > > 00798-14800-7352 > > SPAIN > > > > > > 34-91-414-25-33 > > > > 800-300-053 > > SWEDEN > > > > > > 46-8-566-19-348 > > > > 0200-884-622 > > SWITZERLAND > > > > > > 41-44-580-6398 > > > > 0800-120-032 > > TAIWAN > > > > > > 886-2-2795-7379 > > > > 00801-137-797 > > THAILAND > > > > > > > > 001-800-1206-66056 > > TURKEY > > > > > > > > 00-800-151-0516 > > UNITED ARAB EMIRATES > > > > > > > > 8000-35702370 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > > > BIRMINGHAM: > > > > 44-121-210-9025 > > > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > > > GLASGOW: > > > > 44-141-202-3225 > > > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > > > LEEDS: > > > > 44-113-301-2125 > > > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > > > LONDON: > > > > 44-20-7108-6370 > > > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > > > MANCHESTER: > > > > 44-161-601-1425 > > > > 0808-238-6029 > > URUGUAY > > > > > > > > 000-413-598-3421 > > USA > > > > > > 1-517-345-9004 > > > > 866-692-5726 > > VENEZUELA > > > > > > > > 0800-1-00-3702 > > Thank you, > > Terri Agnew > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Fri Sep 18 22:41:20 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:41:20 +0000 Subject: =?Windows-1252?Q?RE:_[gnso-review-dt]_GNSO_Review_Working_Party_Draft_Sta?= =?Windows-1252?Q?tement_on_Westlake_Goverance=92s_Final_GNSO_Review_Repor?= =?Windows-1252?Q?t?= In-Reply-To: <55FC9139.6070601@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496B334D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>,<55FC9139.6070601@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496CC5FA@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Thanks Stephanie. Your edits look fine to me, noting that 'commited' has two t's: 'committed'. Chuck ________________________________ From: Stephanie Perrin [stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca] Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 6:33 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report I think this is very sensible. I offer only a few typo edits and one additional sentence in the attached markup version Thanks! Stephanie Perrin On 2015-09-17 19:18, Gomes, Chuck wrote: I took a first crack at possible Working Party comments on Westlake's Recommendation 23 that we discussed in most of our meeting yesterday. I have to confess that I am not real satisfied with my draft but I hope that it will facilitate our efforts to create one even if we ignore mine and start from scratch. If we do develop comments, I think that it would be important for us to try to get unanimous approval by Working Team members who participate in writing and approving the comments or, if we cannot do that, at least provide an opportunity for minority statements. Open and free criticism is welcome including from those in the NPOC like Klaus. Chuck -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From charla.shambley at icann.org Fri Sep 18 22:45:16 2015 From: charla.shambley at icann.org (Charla Shambley) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:45:16 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Meeting - 21 September 2015 at 16:00 UTC Message-ID: <31df607788504020ae251d2b50a22fb0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear GNSO Review Working Party - Reminder that your next working party call is scheduled for Monday, 21 September from 16:00-17:00 UTC. Remote participation details are in the email below. For ease of reference, I am attaching Chuck's draft document that he sent to the Working Party yesterday. Finally, I have kept the doodle poll open for your second upcoming call (to discuss recommendations, prioritize and make recommendations on implementation). Please click on this doodle poll link to provide your availability if you haven't already done so. I will close this poll on Wednesday, 23 September. Thank you and enjoy your weekend! Charla From: owner-ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Terri Agnew Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 8:51 AM To: ntfy-gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: [ntfy-gnso-review-dt] Meeting Invitation: meeting of GNSO Review Working Party Monday, 21 September 2015 at 16:00 UTC Dear all, The next meeting of the GNSO Review Working Party is scheduled for Monday, 21 September 2015 at 16:00 UTC for 1 hour. 09:00 PDT, 12:00 EDT, 17:00 London, 18:00 CET, +1 02:00 Sydney For other places: http://tinyurl.com/nqr7u3l Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/gnso-review/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ The dial-in details are below - please let me know if you require a dial-out. Please confirm your dial-out requests to GNSO Secretariats gnso-secs at icann.org _________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: GNSO REVIEW For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA BANGALORE: 91-80-61275204 INDIA MUMBAI: 91-22-61501629 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Thank you, Terri Agnew -------------- 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 Report.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 18884 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5511 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Sep 18 22:33:29 2015 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:33:29 -0400 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_[gnso-review-dt]_GNSO_Review_Working_Party_Draft_Stat?= =?UTF-8?Q?ement_on_Westlake_Goverance=e2=80=99s_Final_GNSO_Review_Report?= In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496B334D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496B334D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <55FC9139.6070601@mail.utoronto.ca> I think this is very sensible. I offer only a few typo edits and one additional sentence in the attached markup version Thanks! Stephanie Perrin On 2015-09-17 19:18, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > I took a first crack at possible Working Party comments on Westlake's > Recommendation 23 that we discussed in most of our meeting yesterday. > I have to confess that I am not real satisfied with my draft but I > hope that it will facilitate our efforts to create one even if we > ignore mine and start from scratch. > > If we do develop comments, I think that it would be important for us > to try to get unanimous approval by Working Team members who > participate in writing and approving the comments or, if we cannot do > that, at least provide an opportunity for minority statements. > > Open and free criticism is welcome including from those in the NPOC > like Klaus. > > Chuck > -------------- 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 Reportsp.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 23108 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Sat Sep 19 10:51:29 2015 From: rudi.vansnick at isoc.be (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:51:29 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] =?utf-8?Q?Re=3A_=5Bgnso-review-dt=5D_GNSO_Review_Working_Party_D?= =?utf-8?Q?raft_Statement_on_Westlake_Goverance=E2=80=99s_Final_G?= =?utf-8?Q?NSO_Review_Report?= In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496B334D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496B334D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <5A12EFE7-BB67-46E6-A9E2-1D1074F70856@isoc.be> Dear Chuck, Many thanks for drafting the document. NPOC Excom met yesterday and will prepare responses before the Monday meeting. Kind regards, 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 > Op 18-sep.-2015, om 01:18 heeft Gomes, Chuck het volgende geschreven: > > I took a first crack at possible Working Party comments on Westlake's Recommendation 23 that we discussed in most of our meeting yesterday. I have to confess that I am not real satisfied with my draft but I hope that it will facilitate our efforts to create one even if we ignore mine and start from scratch. > > If we do develop comments, I think that it would be important for us to try to get unanimous approval by Working Team members who participate in writing and approving the comments or, if we cannot do that, at least provide an opportunity for minority statements. > > Open and free criticism is welcome including from those in the NPOC like Klaus. > > Chuck > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Mon Sep 21 12:12:53 2015 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:12:53 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] =?utf-8?Q?Re=3A_=5Bgnso-review-dt=5D_GNSO_Review_Working_Party_D?= =?utf-8?Q?raft_Statement_on_Westlake_Goverance=E2=80=99s_Final_G?= =?utf-8?Q?NSO_Review_Report?= In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496B334D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496B334D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <192AE2DC-D904-403A-8E10-0024B5191642@gmail.com> Hi Thanks Chuck for your work here, appreciated. Sorry for the slow reply but coordination takes time and nobody had factored another round of corrections and rebuttals into their schedules. You nicely make a number of the points NCUC would raise. At the same time, there are a couple passages that just don?t work for us, and a couple amplifications we?d add. I attach suggested edits to discuss on the call later. If we can get consensus on RT comments fine, if not ok we can each submit separate replies as befits a process engineered to strengthen divisions rather than promote consensus in the community. Best Bill > On Sep 18, 2015, at 1:18 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > I took a first crack at possible Working Party comments on Westlake's Recommendation 23 that we discussed in most of our meeting yesterday. I have to confess that I am not real satisfied with my draft but I hope that it will facilitate our efforts to create one even if we ignore mine and start from scratch. > > If we do develop comments, I think that it would be important for us to try to get unanimous approval by Working Team members who participate in writing and approving the comments or, if we cannot do that, at least provide an opportunity for minority statements. > > Open and free criticism is welcome including from those in the NPOC like Klaus. > > Chuck > -------------- 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 Reportspbd.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 117343 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Mon Sep 21 13:36:03 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:36:03 +0000 Subject: =?Windows-1252?Q?RE:_[gnso-review-dt]_GNSO_Review_Working_Party_Draft_Sta?= =?Windows-1252?Q?tement_on_Westlake_Goverance=92s_Final_GNSO_Review_Repor?= =?Windows-1252?Q?t?= In-Reply-To: <192AE2DC-D904-403A-8E10-0024B5191642@gmail.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496B334D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <192AE2DC-D904-403A-8E10-0024B5191642@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496CF2FA@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Thanks very much Bill. I understanding the challenge of coordinating replies and, in fact, am very pleased that you were very able to do it so quickly. I don?t understand why we wouldn?t thank Westlake and staff for their efforts. That seems to me to be just simple courtesy. In a quick read of your other suggested edits, I didn?t see any that seem unworkable from my point of view. Chuck From: William Drake [mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:13 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report Hi Thanks Chuck for your work here, appreciated. Sorry for the slow reply but coordination takes time and nobody had factored another round of corrections and rebuttals into their schedules. You nicely make a number of the points NCUC would raise. At the same time, there are a couple passages that just don?t work for us, and a couple amplifications we?d add. I attach suggested edits to discuss on the call later. If we can get consensus on RT comments fine, if not ok we can each submit separate replies as befits a process engineered to strengthen divisions rather than promote consensus in the community. Best Bill On Sep 18, 2015, at 1:18 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: I took a first crack at possible Working Party comments on Westlake's Recommendation 23 that we discussed in most of our meeting yesterday. I have to confess that I am not real satisfied with my draft but I hope that it will facilitate our efforts to create one even if we ignore mine and start from scratch. If we do develop comments, I think that it would be important for us to try to get unanimous approval by Working Team members who participate in writing and approving the comments or, if we cannot do that, at least provide an opportunity for minority statements. Open and free criticism is welcome including from those in the NPOC like Klaus. Chuck -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Mon Sep 21 14:54:02 2015 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:54:02 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] =?utf-8?Q?Re=3A_=5Bgnso-review-dt=5D_GNSO_Review_Working_Party_D?= =?utf-8?Q?raft_Statement_on_Westlake_Goverance=E2=80=99s_Final_G?= =?utf-8?Q?NSO_Review_Report?= In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496CF2FA@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496B334D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <192AE2DC-D904-403A-8E10-0024B5191642@gmail.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496CF2FA@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: Chuck I am not at all happy to be put in this position but apparently it comes with the territory. Thankfulness for two drive by shootings is just a really hard sell. Bill > On Sep 21, 2015, at 3:36 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > Thanks very much Bill. I understanding the challenge of coordinating replies and, in fact, am very pleased that you were very able to do it so quickly. I don?t understand why we wouldn?t thank Westlake and staff for their efforts. That seems to me to be just simple courtesy. In a quick read of your other suggested edits, I didn?t see any that seem unworkable from my point of view. > > Chuck > > > > From: William Drake [mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com ] > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:13 AM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report > > Hi > > Thanks Chuck for your work here, appreciated. Sorry for the slow reply but coordination takes time and nobody had factored another round of corrections and rebuttals into their schedules. > > You nicely make a number of the points NCUC would raise. At the same time, there are a couple passages that just don?t work for us, and a couple amplifications we?d add. I attach suggested edits to discuss on the call later. If we can get consensus on RT comments fine, if not ok we can each submit separate replies as befits a process engineered to strengthen divisions rather than promote consensus in the community. > > Best > > Bill > > On Sep 18, 2015, at 1:18 AM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: > > I took a first crack at possible Working Party comments on Westlake's Recommendation 23 that we discussed in most of our meeting yesterday. I have to confess that I am not real satisfied with my draft but I hope that it will facilitate our efforts to create one even if we ignore mine and start from scratch. > > If we do develop comments, I think that it would be important for us to try to get unanimous approval by Working Team members who participate in writing and approving the comments or, if we cannot do that, at least provide an opportunity for minority statements. > > Open and free criticism is welcome including from those in the NPOC like Klaus. > > Chuck > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PolicyCalendar at icann.org Mon Sep 21 15:38:36 2015 From: PolicyCalendar at icann.org (ICANN Policy Calendar) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:38:36 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] FW: GNSO Review Working Party In-Reply-To: <29f0595b650e46d19cb40d97817e50c0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <29f0595b650e46d19cb40d97817e50c0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: Just a quick reminder of our call starting at 16:00 UTC (about 20 minutes from now). Below are the remove participation details. Thank you and I hope you are able to join the call. Charla * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dear all, The next meeting of the GNSO Review Working Party is scheduled for Monday, 21 September 2015 at 16:00 UTC for 1 hour. 09:00 PDT, 12:00 EDT, 17:00 London, 18:00 CET, +1 02:00 Sydney For other places: http://tinyurl.com/nqr7u3l Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/gnso-review/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ The dial-in details are below ? please let me know if you require a dial-out. Please confirm your dial-out requests to GNSO Secretariats gnso-secs at icann.org _________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: GNSO REVIEW For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. ____________________________________________________________________________ Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA BANGALORE: 91-80-61275204 INDIA MUMBAI: 91-22-61501629 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Thank you, Terri Agnew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 6338 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Mon Sep 21 16:38:51 2015 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:38:51 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] potential text in Word Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Points on Westlake Goverance GNSO Review Final Reportspbd.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 27658 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri at acm.org Mon Sep 21 16:50:53 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 12:50:53 -0400 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_[gnso-review-dt]_Re:_[gnso-review-dt]_GNSO_Review_Wor?= =?UTF-8?Q?king_Party_Draft_Statement_on_Westlake_Goverance=e2=80=99s_Final_?= =?UTF-8?Q?GNSO_Review_Report?= In-Reply-To: References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496B334D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <192AE2DC-D904-403A-8E10-0024B5191642@gmail.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496CF2FA@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <5600356D.4070307@acm.org> Hi, I think it is sufficient to acknowledge their report without adding gratitude. for politeness sake, it might be sufficient to say: The Working Party wants to thank Westlake for delivery of their final report and for participation in our meetings. We also want to thank the staff members who provided consistent and invaluable support. avri On 21-Sep-15 10:54, William Drake wrote: > Chuck > > I am not at all happy to be put in this position but apparently it > comes with the territory. Thankfulness for two drive by shootings is > just a really hard sell. > > Bill > >> On Sep 21, 2015, at 3:36 PM, Gomes, Chuck > > wrote: >> >> Thanks very much Bill. I understanding the challenge of coordinating >> replies and, in fact, am very pleased that you were very able to do >> it so quickly. I don?t understand why we wouldn?t thank Westlake and >> staff for their efforts. That seems to me to be just simple >> courtesy. In a quick read of your other suggested edits, I didn?t >> see any that seem unworkable from my point of view. >> >> Chuck >> >> >> >> *From:* William Drake [mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2015 8:13 AM >> *To:* Gomes, Chuck >> *Cc:* gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft >> Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report >> >> Hi >> >> Thanks Chuck for your work here, appreciated. Sorry for the slow >> reply but coordination takes time and nobody had factored another >> round of corrections and rebuttals into their schedules. >> >> You nicely make a number of the points NCUC would raise. At the same >> time, there are a couple passages that just don?t work for us, and a >> couple amplifications we?d add. I attach suggested edits to discuss >> on the call later. If we can get consensus on RT comments fine, if >> not ok we can each submit separate replies as befits a process >> engineered to strengthen divisions rather than promote consensus in >> the community. >> >> Best >> >> Bill >> >> >> On Sep 18, 2015, at 1:18 AM, Gomes, Chuck > > wrote: >> >> I took a first crack at possible Working Party comments on >> Westlake's Recommendation 23 that we discussed in most of our >> meeting yesterday. I have to confess that I am not real >> satisfied with my draft but I hope that it will facilitate our >> efforts to create one even if we ignore mine and start from scratch. >> >> If we do develop comments, I think that it would be important for >> us to try to get unanimous approval by Working Team members who >> participate in writing and approving the comments or, if we >> cannot do that, at least provide an opportunity for minority >> statements. >> >> Open and free criticism is welcome including from those in the >> NPOC like Klaus. >> >> Chuck >> >> > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From jwolfe at wolfedomain.com Mon Sep 21 18:03:56 2015 From: jwolfe at wolfedomain.com (Jen Wolfe) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:03:56 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] WP Formal Response to Recommendation 23 - Please Review Message-ID: Thank you to all who participated in today's call regarding a formal response from the Working Party to the Organizational Effectiveness Committee to object to Recommendation 23. For those of you who could not attend, please note that we are working on a formal response to the independent examiner's Recommendation 23 which, in the final report, was amended to state: Recommendation 23: In order to support ICANN's multi-stakeholder model, All Cs should have seats on the GNSO Council, allocated equally (as far as numerically practicable) by their SG's. I am attaching the summary of all changes to the recommendations provided in the Final Report. This change in the Final Report has raised concerns by members of the Working Party. We are aiming to provide a formal response to the OEC when they meet NEXT Monday, September 28th. Because of the short turn-around time, we are asking that all Constituencies and Stakeholder groups respond with either comments or note objections by paragraph number. We are also working toward providing this to GNSO Council prior to their meeting on Thursday to elicit feedback from Council. A revised version will be circulated by tomorrow to the distribution list. We understand and acknowledge the rapid turn-around time and recognize that all of you are very busy. Unfortunately, this change was made in the final report released on September 15 and we did not have an opportunity to comment on this before it was released publicly. If you can please circulate to your respective groups, we would appreciate it. We have noted that many groups have not been well represented during our calls. If you can kindly let me know if you have the time and interest in continuing to participate, I would appreciate it. We want to ensure that this response and our ongoing work is consensus driven. Thanks again for your continued commitment to this process! With kind regards, 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Review Recommendations - changes from Draft to Final Report.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 117421 bytes Desc: GNSO Review Recommendations - changes from Draft to Final Report.pdf URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Mon Sep 21 22:27:54 2015 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 22:27:54 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] MP3 recording GNSO Review Working Party teleconference 21 September 2015 16:00UTC Message-ID: Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Review Working Party teleconference held on Wednesday, 16 September 2015 at 16:00 UTC: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-21sep15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Jennifer Wolfe Klaus Stoll Chuck Gomes Bill Drake Rafik Dammak Jeff Neuman Joan Kerr Martin Silva David Cake Observer: Amr Elsadr Apologies: none ICANN Staff: Mary Wong Marika Konings Lars Hoffman Larisa Gurnick Charla Shambley Terri Agnew Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Adobe Chat transcript: Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, Welcome to the GNSO Review Working Party on the 21 September 2015 Mary Wong:It's already Tuesday in Asia Pacific! :) Amr Elsadr:Hi all. I hope it's OK that I'm crashing this call again. :) Nathalie Peregrine:Scrolling is enabled for all Chuck Gomes:Crashers welcome! Bill Drake:fair point Jen Marika Konings:Is the Working Party also planning to inform / seek endorsement from the GNSO Council on the letter? Amr Elsadr:Gratitude Chuck. :) And thanks for drafting a WP comment to the OEC. Chuck Gomes:I think any statement should be supported by the Working Party but participation in our discussion is fine with me. Rudi Vansnick:NPOC is still working on the document as it got changes this morning too Bill Drake:There's been a fairly high level of disengagment from the start, which I think is telling. I'd hope we could get all groups on board but... Bill Drake:I agree there will be more points along the timeline for Council, next week is not realistic Amr Elsadr:@Chuck: I agree. Time is tight for council consideration. If endorsement can be achieved and will be helpful post Sep 28th, we could aim for that. Amr Elsadr:@Rudi: Do you have an estimate on when NPOC may be ready to comment on this? Marika Konings:It may be worth to reconfirm membership? Marika Konings:as some people may have moved on to other things in the meantime? Rudi Vansnick:we had a meeting last week and scheduled another one this week Chuck Gomes:Reconfirming membership is a good idea. Rudi Vansnick:we need to review the text as it is now presented (today) Amr Elsadr:@Rudi: Is this week's meeting before or after tomorrow's NCSG monthly call? Rudi Vansnick:@Amr: no it is not, but I will try with Klaus to work on a text Chuck Gomes:If and when we sent out a draft statement to see if there are any objections or edits we could also ask members to let us know if they are not any longer participating. Amr Elsadr:Thanks Rudi. Amr Elsadr:I can zoom in and out of the document on the screen, but can't seem to scroll down. Help? Bill Drake:Amr it was also on the email list if you want a copy Amr Elsadr:Thank Jen and Bill. Bill Drake:General comment again -- thanks Chuck for the work Amr Elsadr:As far as the NCSG is concerned, I believe this has been extensively discussed in the past, so it shouldn't be too difficult bringing our members up to speed on what's happening with rec #23. Bill Drake:to be clear I'm not objecting to the structure, I'm just asking if people find it sserviceable Amr Elsadr:Can't speak for other groups. Bill Drake:I'm partial to the UN numbered paragraph approach Amr Elsadr:I like "tribal silos" and moats. Very medieval!! :) Bill Drake:I LOVE interest groups Bill Drake:I think beyond a certain level there are differences IG vs C operationally Bill Drake:but we have what we have Bill Drake:nope Bill Drake:I was wondering about that too Amr Bill Drake:is that text a little hard to follow? Rudi Vansnick:for clarification : NPOC's silence during this call is due to the fact we are still deliberating on the text Rudi Vansnick:it would be good if we could have the last version in word, as we only got in pdf format Bill Drake:I actually thought you were going to speak about c i&ii Amr Elsadr:@Chuck: Thanks, and fully agree. I'll go over this more carefully, and try to see if some of this can be tweaked, or not. Bill Drake:could replace the change procedures clause Bill Drake:could be remedied by ensuring that all its Constituencies are represented Bill Drake:of course Jeff Neuman:I will make sure the registrars are up to date Amr Elsadr:Rudi has indicated that NPOC are still undecided. Bill Drake:we certainly should all be able to express concern that a Rec. with such broad implications was inserted at the end without our vetting it Bill Drake:Amr the Word doc was sent on the list Bill Drake:tracked by Google or tracked by Microsoft Mary Wong:Council meeting is at 1800 UTC on Thursday. Amr Elsadr:I'm actually still subscribed to the WP list, so with everyone's permission, I will circulate another draft to the list. Amr Elsadr:Mary answered the question before it was asked. :) Amr Elsadr:Agree with Chuck. Amr Elsadr:@Jen: Will you be briefing the council on Thursday? Charla Shambley:link to the doodle poll: http://doodle.com/poll/i566km5tqqhavk3v#table Mary Wong:@Amr, I believe Jen has been invited and there is an agenda item for this, yes. Bill Drake:thanks Jen Marika Konings:@Mary, Amr - yes that is correct Rudi Vansnick:thanks Jen and Chuck Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwolfe at wolfedomain.com Tue Sep 22 12:48:45 2015 From: jwolfe at wolfedomain.com (Jen Wolfe) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 12:48:45 +0000 Subject: =?Windows-1252?Q?FW:_[gnso-review-dt]_[gnso-review-dt]_GNSO_Review_Workin?= =?Windows-1252?Q?g_Party_Draft_Statement_on_Westlake_Goverance=92s_Final_?= =?Windows-1252?Q?GNSO_Review_Report?= In-Reply-To: <227853FB-CDE7-48CE-81A6-056428672F4D@egyptig.org> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496B334D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <192AE2DC-D904-403A-8E10-0024B5191642@gmail.com> <9212E199-2595-4634-9392-4D31C6DCC8BA@egyptig.org> <227853FB-CDE7-48CE-81A6-056428672F4D@egyptig.org> Message-ID: I am forwarding the revised document from Amr. Thanks, Amr for taking the first pass at making revisions noted. If you plan to make edits, please send a quick note around so we can track version control. I would like to add my suggestion that we include either in the opening, conclusion or both that there are 35 other recommendations, many of which there is wide spread consensus for support, based upon public comments, and that we, as the Working Party will be meeting to discuss recommendations on implementation. Please let me know if that continues to be acceptable to everyone. We still need to restructure the numbering as well, per our discussion. I'm happy to do that. Please let me know, though, if anyone else wants to make substantive changes and I'll wait to make the structure changes and incorporate my above comment. We are targeting delivering this to GNSO Council by Thursday, prior to the council meeting. If anyone from the BC or IPC can offer comments, that would be greatly helpful. There was no one on the last two calls and just want to make sure you do not object to this communication. Thanks so much for your continued support and commitment to this process! 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 -----Original Message----- From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 5:57 PM To: Jen Wolfe Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report Hi, I?ve attached a document to this email with the changes I suggested during today?s call, along with a couple more. As suggested by Chuck, I used a clean copy of the document following the edits provided by Bill, then made redline changes to that so that all changes following today?s call are clearly visible. Could you please forward this to the working party list for consideration? Thanks Jen. Amr -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Points on Westlake Goverance GNSO Review Final Reportspbd + edits by AE.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 29339 bytes Desc: Draft Points on Westlake Goverance GNSO Review Final Reportspbd + edits by AE.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Tue Sep 22 13:42:37 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 13:42:37 +0000 Subject: =?Windows-1252?Q?RE:_[gnso-review-dt]_[gnso-review-dt]_GNSO_Review_Workin?= =?Windows-1252?Q?g_Party_Draft_Statement_on_Westlake_Goverance=92s_Final_?= =?Windows-1252?Q?GNSO_Review_Report?= In-Reply-To: References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496B334D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <192AE2DC-D904-403A-8E10-0024B5191642@gmail.com> <9212E199-2595-4634-9392-4D31C6DCC8BA@egyptig.org> <227853FB-CDE7-48CE-81A6-056428672F4D@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496D11D4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Amr's edits look fine to me. Jen - I fully support you adding your comments about the other recommendations and also restructuring as you think best. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 8:49 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Amr Elsadr Subject: FW: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report I am forwarding the revised document from Amr. Thanks, Amr for taking the first pass at making revisions noted. If you plan to make edits, please send a quick note around so we can track version control. I would like to add my suggestion that we include either in the opening, conclusion or both that there are 35 other recommendations, many of which there is wide spread consensus for support, based upon public comments, and that we, as the Working Party will be meeting to discuss recommendations on implementation. Please let me know if that continues to be acceptable to everyone. We still need to restructure the numbering as well, per our discussion. I'm happy to do that. Please let me know, though, if anyone else wants to make substantive changes and I'll wait to make the structure changes and incorporate my above comment. We are targeting delivering this to GNSO Council by Thursday, prior to the council meeting. If anyone from the BC or IPC can offer comments, that would be greatly helpful. There was no one on the last two calls and just want to make sure you do not object to this communication. Thanks so much for your continued support and commitment to this process! 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 -----Original Message----- From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 5:57 PM To: Jen Wolfe Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report Hi, I?ve attached a document to this email with the changes I suggested during today?s call, along with a couple more. As suggested by Chuck, I used a clean copy of the document following the edits provided by Bill, then made redline changes to that so that all changes following today?s call are clearly visible. Could you please forward this to the working party list for consideration? Thanks Jen. Amr From jwolfe at wolfedomain.com Tue Sep 22 18:43:19 2015 From: jwolfe at wolfedomain.com (Jen Wolfe) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 18:43:19 +0000 Subject: =?Windows-1252?Q?RE:_[gnso-review-dt]_[gnso-review-dt]_GNSO_Review_Workin?= =?Windows-1252?Q?g_Party_Draft_Statement_on_Westlake_Goverance=92s_Final_?= =?Windows-1252?Q?GNSO_Review_Report?= In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496D11D4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496B334D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <192AE2DC-D904-403A-8E10-0024B5191642@gmail.com> <9212E199-2595-4634-9392-4D31C6DCC8BA@egyptig.org> <227853FB-CDE7-48CE-81A6-056428672F4D@egyptig.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496D11D4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: Thanks, Chuck. I am attaching a revised version of the draft communication. I accepted Amr's changes and added a few of my own (redlined in the attached document). I also made the formatting/renumbering changes. I went ahead and accepted the formatting changes to keep it easier to read. Please let me know if you have any concerns with the proposed revisions. If any one else would like to make revisions, please just let us know so we can continue to track versions appropriately. Again, we are targeting to provide this draft to council by Thursday before their meeting. If I don't receive any objections, I will provide to staff to circulate to GNSO Council on Thursday morning (EDT). Pending feedback from Council, we will either proceed with providing this to the OEC or, if there is objection in the community or from Council, we will notify the OEC that there is concern about Revised Recommendation 23 and that a more formal statement with be forthcoming, pending time for review and comment. Thanks again for your continued support of this effort- have a great day! 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 -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9:43 AM To: Jen Wolfe ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Amr Elsadr Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report Amr's edits look fine to me. Jen - I fully support you adding your comments about the other recommendations and also restructuring as you think best. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 8:49 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Amr Elsadr Subject: FW: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report I am forwarding the revised document from Amr. Thanks, Amr for taking the first pass at making revisions noted. If you plan to make edits, please send a quick note around so we can track version control. I would like to add my suggestion that we include either in the opening, conclusion or both that there are 35 other recommendations, many of which there is wide spread consensus for support, based upon public comments, and that we, as the Working Party will be meeting to discuss recommendations on implementation. Please let me know if that continues to be acceptable to everyone. We still need to restructure the numbering as well, per our discussion. I'm happy to do that. Please let me know, though, if anyone else wants to make substantive changes and I'll wait to make the structure changes and incorporate my above comment. We are targeting delivering this to GNSO Council by Thursday, prior to the council meeting. If anyone from the BC or IPC can offer comments, that would be greatly helpful. There was no one on the last two calls and just want to make sure you do not object to this communication. Thanks so much for your continued support and commitment to this process! 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 -----Original Message----- From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 5:57 PM To: Jen Wolfe Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report Hi, I?ve attached a document to this email with the changes I suggested during today?s call, along with a couple more. As suggested by Chuck, I used a clean copy of the document following the edits provided by Bill, then made redline changes to that so that all changes following today?s call are clearly visible. Could you please forward this to the working party list for consideration? Thanks Jen. Amr -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Points on Westlake Goverance GNSO Review Final Reports renumbered and JW Comments.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 26276 bytes Desc: Draft Points on Westlake Goverance GNSO Review Final Reports renumbered and JW Comments.docx URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Tue Sep 22 19:35:36 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:35:36 +0000 Subject: =?Windows-1252?Q?RE:_[gnso-review-dt]_[gnso-review-dt]_GNSO_Review_Workin?= =?Windows-1252?Q?g_Party_Draft_Statement_on_Westlake_Goverance=92s_Final_?= =?Windows-1252?Q?GNSO_Review_Report?= In-Reply-To: References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496B334D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <192AE2DC-D904-403A-8E10-0024B5191642@gmail.com> <9212E199-2595-4634-9392-4D31C6DCC8BA@egyptig.org> <227853FB-CDE7-48CE-81A6-056428672F4D@egyptig.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496D11D4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496D1ED4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Looks fine to me Jen. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Jen Wolfe [mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 2:43 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Amr Elsadr Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report Thanks, Chuck. I am attaching a revised version of the draft communication. I accepted Amr's changes and added a few of my own (redlined in the attached document). I also made the formatting/renumbering changes. I went ahead and accepted the formatting changes to keep it easier to read. Please let me know if you have any concerns with the proposed revisions. If any one else would like to make revisions, please just let us know so we can continue to track versions appropriately. Again, we are targeting to provide this draft to council by Thursday before their meeting. If I don't receive any objections, I will provide to staff to circulate to GNSO Council on Thursday morning (EDT). Pending feedback from Council, we will either proceed with providing this to the OEC or, if there is objection in the community or from Council, we will notify the OEC that there is concern about Revised Recommendation 23 and that a more formal statement with be forthcoming, pending time for review and comment. Thanks again for your continued support of this effort- have a great day! 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 -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9:43 AM To: Jen Wolfe ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Amr Elsadr Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report Amr's edits look fine to me. Jen - I fully support you adding your comments about the other recommendations and also restructuring as you think best. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 8:49 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Amr Elsadr Subject: FW: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report I am forwarding the revised document from Amr. Thanks, Amr for taking the first pass at making revisions noted. If you plan to make edits, please send a quick note around so we can track version control. I would like to add my suggestion that we include either in the opening, conclusion or both that there are 35 other recommendations, many of which there is wide spread consensus for support, based upon public comments, and that we, as the Working Party will be meeting to discuss recommendations on implementation. Please let me know if that continues to be acceptable to everyone. We still need to restructure the numbering as well, per our discussion. I'm happy to do that. Please let me know, though, if anyone else wants to make substantive changes and I'll wait to make the structure changes and incorporate my above comment. We are targeting delivering this to GNSO Council by Thursday, prior to the council meeting. If anyone from the BC or IPC can offer comments, that would be greatly helpful. There was no one on the last two calls and just want to make sure you do not object to this communication. Thanks so much for your continued support and commitment to this process! 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 -----Original Message----- From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 5:57 PM To: Jen Wolfe Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report Hi, I?ve attached a document to this email with the changes I suggested during today?s call, along with a couple more. As suggested by Chuck, I used a clean copy of the document following the edits provided by Bill, then made redline changes to that so that all changes following today?s call are clearly visible. Could you please forward this to the working party list for consideration? Thanks Jen. Amr From jscottevans at outlook.com Tue Sep 22 19:59:16 2015 From: jscottevans at outlook.com (J. Scott Evans) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:59:16 +0000 Subject: =?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_[gnso-review-dt]_[gnso-review-dt]_GNSO_Review_Workin?= =?Windows-1252?Q?g_Party_Draft_Statement_on_Westlake_Goverance=92s_Final_?= =?Windows-1252?Q?GNSO_Review_Report?= In-Reply-To: References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496B334D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <192AE2DC-D904-403A-8E10-0024B5191642@gmail.com> <9212E199-2595-4634-9392-4D31C6DCC8BA@egyptig.org> <227853FB-CDE7-48CE-81A6-056428672F4D@egyptig.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496D11D4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>, Message-ID: While I agree that the recommendation could be clearer given that two of the SGs operate without Constituencies, I cannot say that I disagree with the premise that those SGs that have Constituencies should allocate the Council seats equally amongst constituencies. J. Scott Evans ________________________________________ From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org on behalf of Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 11:43 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Amr Elsadr Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report Thanks, Chuck. I am attaching a revised version of the draft communication. I accepted Amr's changes and added a few of my own (redlined in the attached document). I also made the formatting/renumbering changes. I went ahead and accepted the formatting changes to keep it easier to read. Please let me know if you have any concerns with the proposed revisions. If any one else would like to make revisions, please just let us know so we can continue to track versions appropriately. Again, we are targeting to provide this draft to council by Thursday before their meeting. If I don't receive any objections, I will provide to staff to circulate to GNSO Council on Thursday morning (EDT). Pending feedback from Council, we will either proceed with providing this to the OEC or, if there is objection in the community or from Council, we will notify the OEC that there is concern about Revised Recommendation 23 and that a more formal statement with be forthcoming, pending time for review and comment. Thanks again for your continued support of this effort- have a great day! 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 -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9:43 AM To: Jen Wolfe ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Amr Elsadr Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report Amr's edits look fine to me. Jen - I fully support you adding your comments about the other recommendations and also restructuring as you think best. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 8:49 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Amr Elsadr Subject: FW: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report I am forwarding the revised document from Amr. Thanks, Amr for taking the first pass at making revisions noted. If you plan to make edits, please send a quick note around so we can track version control. I would like to add my suggestion that we include either in the opening, conclusion or both that there are 35 other recommendations, many of which there is wide spread consensus for support, based upon public comments, and that we, as the Working Party will be meeting to discuss recommendations on implementation. Please let me know if that continues to be acceptable to everyone. We still need to restructure the numbering as well, per our discussion. I'm happy to do that. Please let me know, though, if anyone else wants to make substantive changes and I'll wait to make the structure changes and incorporate my above comment. We are targeting delivering this to GNSO Council by Thursday, prior to the council meeting. If anyone from the BC or IPC can offer comments, that would be greatly helpful. There was no one on the last two calls and just want to make sure you do not object to this communication. Thanks so much for your continued support and commitment to this process! 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 -----Original Message----- From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 5:57 PM To: Jen Wolfe Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report Hi, I?ve attached a document to this email with the changes I suggested during today?s call, along with a couple more. As suggested by Chuck, I used a clean copy of the document following the edits provided by Bill, then made redline changes to that so that all changes following today?s call are clearly visible. Could you please forward this to the working party list for consideration? Thanks Jen. Amr From cgomes at Verisign.com Tue Sep 22 20:28:36 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 20:28:36 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Governance's Final GNSO Review Report Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496D1FBC@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> J. Scott, What does 'equally' mean J.Scott? For the CSG it seems fairly clear but that might not always be the case. It might not be as straightforward for the NCSG or for the RySG or RrSG ever get constituencies. Also, this approach could incent groups to form constituencies to get seats on the Council. What happens if a SG gets more than six constituencies? It seems to me that this needs to be thought through much more carefully. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans at outlook.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:59 PM To: Jen Wolfe; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Amr Elsadr Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance's Final GNSO Review Report While I agree that the recommendation could be clearer given that two of the SGs operate without Constituencies, I cannot say that I disagree with the premise that those SGs that have Constituencies should allocate the Council seats equally amongst constituencies. J. Scott Evans ________________________________________ From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org on behalf of Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 11:43 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Amr Elsadr Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance's Final GNSO Review Report Thanks, Chuck. I am attaching a revised version of the draft communication. I accepted Amr's changes and added a few of my own (redlined in the attached document). I also made the formatting/renumbering changes. I went ahead and accepted the formatting changes to keep it easier to read. Please let me know if you have any concerns with the proposed revisions. If any one else would like to make revisions, please just let us know so we can continue to track versions appropriately. Again, we are targeting to provide this draft to council by Thursday before their meeting. If I don't receive any objections, I will provide to staff to circulate to GNSO Council on Thursday morning (EDT). Pending feedback from Council, we will either proceed with providing this to the OEC or, if there is objection in the community or from Council, we will notify the OEC that there is concern about Revised Recommendation 23 and that a more formal statement with be forthcoming, pending time for review and comment. Thanks again for your continued support of this effort- have a great day! 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 -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9:43 AM To: Jen Wolfe ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Amr Elsadr Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance's Final GNSO Review Report Amr's edits look fine to me. Jen - I fully support you adding your comments about the other recommendations and also restructuring as you think best. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 8:49 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Amr Elsadr Subject: FW: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance's Final GNSO Review Report I am forwarding the revised document from Amr. Thanks, Amr for taking the first pass at making revisions noted. If you plan to make edits, please send a quick note around so we can track version control. I would like to add my suggestion that we include either in the opening, conclusion or both that there are 35 other recommendations, many of which there is wide spread consensus for support, based upon public comments, and that we, as the Working Party will be meeting to discuss recommendations on implementation. Please let me know if that continues to be acceptable to everyone. We still need to restructure the numbering as well, per our discussion. I'm happy to do that. Please let me know, though, if anyone else wants to make substantive changes and I'll wait to make the structure changes and incorporate my above comment. We are targeting delivering this to GNSO Council by Thursday, prior to the council meeting. If anyone from the BC or IPC can offer comments, that would be greatly helpful. There was no one on the last two calls and just want to make sure you do not object to this communication. Thanks so much for your continued support and commitment to this process! 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 -----Original Message----- From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 5:57 PM To: Jen Wolfe Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance's Final GNSO Review Report Hi, I've attached a document to this email with the changes I suggested during today's call, along with a couple more. As suggested by Chuck, I used a clean copy of the document following the edits provided by Bill, then made redline changes to that so that all changes following today's call are clearly visible. Could you please forward this to the working party list for consideration? Thanks Jen. Amr From wjdrake at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 07:24:51 2015 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 09:24:51 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Planning for Plan B In-Reply-To: References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496B334D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <192AE2DC-D904-403A-8E10-0024B5191642@gmail.com> <9212E199-2595-4634-9392-4D31C6DCC8BA@egyptig.org> <227853FB-CDE7-48CE-81A6-056428672F4D@egyptig.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496D11D4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <33D2FE3C-A3D3-4CB1-9D44-32C2D8AA3738@gmail.com> Hi Looking good, thanks for the edits and renumbering. One clarification please: > On Sep 22, 2015, at 8:43 PM, Jen Wolfe wrote: > > Pending feedback from Council, we will either proceed with providing this to the OEC or, if there is objection in the community or from Council, we will notify the OEC that there is concern about Revised Recommendation 23 and that a more formal statement with be forthcoming, pending time for review and comment. Seeing J. Scott?s message this morning, it may be that we can?t get consensus within the WP as step 1. If we are also thinking that there would need to be a consensual endorsement for Councilors as step 2 (I?m not entirely clear on this) then the chances of being able to send a WP text probably slip further. In the event, how should the interested parties proceed? I can?t see any reason for each group that agrees with the text to go off on its own and spend cycles trying to rewrite the same thoughts into its own language. Too much else to do and too little time. Why not instead simply have a sign on to this letter by the coalition of the willing? That way we could get something sent off before the OEC?s Monday meeting. Bill From cgomes at Verisign.com Wed Sep 23 13:57:50 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 13:57:50 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: Planning for Plan B In-Reply-To: <33D2FE3C-A3D3-4CB1-9D44-32C2D8AA3738@gmail.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496B334D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <192AE2DC-D904-403A-8E10-0024B5191642@gmail.com> <9212E199-2595-4634-9392-4D31C6DCC8BA@egyptig.org> <227853FB-CDE7-48CE-81A6-056428672F4D@egyptig.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496D11D4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <33D2FE3C-A3D3-4CB1-9D44-32C2D8AA3738@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496D2E49@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> The sign off approach to a letter seems like a reasonable idea to me. We could also include listing of any WP members who object to specific aspects of the letter. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 3:25 AM To: Jen Wolfe Cc: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Amr Elsadr Subject: Planning for Plan B Hi Looking good, thanks for the edits and renumbering. One clarification please: > On Sep 22, 2015, at 8:43 PM, Jen Wolfe wrote: > > Pending feedback from Council, we will either proceed with providing this to the OEC or, if there is objection in the community or from Council, we will notify the OEC that there is concern about Revised Recommendation 23 and that a more formal statement with be forthcoming, pending time for review and comment. Seeing J. Scott's message this morning, it may be that we can't get consensus within the WP as step 1. If we are also thinking that there would need to be a consensual endorsement for Councilors as step 2 (I'm not entirely clear on this) then the chances of being able to send a WP text probably slip further. In the event, how should the interested parties proceed? I can't see any reason for each group that agrees with the text to go off on its own and spend cycles trying to rewrite the same thoughts into its own language. Too much else to do and too little time. Why not instead simply have a sign on to this letter by the coalition of the willing? That way we could get something sent off before the OEC's Monday meeting. Bill From onovoa at Antel.com.uy Wed Sep 23 14:38:31 2015 From: onovoa at Antel.com.uy (Novoa, Osvaldo) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 14:38:31 +0000 Subject: =?Windows-1252?Q?RE:_[gnso-review-dt]_[gnso-review-dt]_GNSO_Review_Workin?= =?Windows-1252?Q?g_Party_Draft_Statement_on_Westlake_Goverance=92s_Final_?= =?Windows-1252?Q?GNSO_Review_Report?= In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496D1ED4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496B334D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <192AE2DC-D904-403A-8E10-0024B5191642@gmail.com> <9212E199-2595-4634-9392-4D31C6DCC8BA@egyptig.org> <227853FB-CDE7-48CE-81A6-056428672F4D@egyptig.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496D11D4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496D1ED4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <95555D8C70D007418DC72CCFF7C7FA428035A643@E2K10-MBX3.net.in.iantel.com.uy> Hello all, Although I have not participated in the discussions, I am the alternate to Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, ISPCP representative, I have been following the discussion. I think that the ISPCP cannot share this statement. First, in our opinion Westlake work was very good and sugested a lot of improvements. Second, regarding Recommendation 23 we are not totally against it, it has some merit, though we accept that it must be revised considering the particularities of the different groups in the GNSO. The arguments against having council representation for each constituency in the Council can be applied to the CSG and they could be valid, also the arguments for the contrary could also be applied to the NCSG. I think it is a point to be considered and not discarded without the comment of the community. I like Chuck's idea of each member of the group stating if it is in favour or against the recommendation. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa -----Mensaje original----- De: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] En nombre de Gomes, Chuck Enviado el: Martes, 22 de Septiembre de 2015 16:36 Para: Jen Wolfe; gnso-review-dt at icann.org CC: Amr Elsadr Asunto: RE: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report Looks fine to me Jen. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Jen Wolfe [mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 2:43 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Amr Elsadr Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report Thanks, Chuck. I am attaching a revised version of the draft communication. I accepted Amr's changes and added a few of my own (redlined in the attached document). I also made the formatting/renumbering changes. I went ahead and accepted the formatting changes to keep it easier to read. Please let me know if you have any concerns with the proposed revisions. If any one else would like to make revisions, please just let us know so we can continue to track versions appropriately. Again, we are targeting to provide this draft to council by Thursday before their meeting. If I don't receive any objections, I will provide to staff to circulate to GNSO Council on Thursday morning (EDT). Pending feedback from Council, we will either proceed with providing this to the OEC or, if there is objection in the community or from Council, we will notify the OEC that there is concern about Revised Recommendation 23 and that a more formal statement with be forthcoming, pending time for review and comment. Thanks again for your continued support of this effort- have a great day! 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 -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9:43 AM To: Jen Wolfe ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Amr Elsadr Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report Amr's edits look fine to me. Jen - I fully support you adding your comments about the other recommendations and also restructuring as you think best. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 8:49 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Amr Elsadr Subject: FW: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report I am forwarding the revised document from Amr. Thanks, Amr for taking the first pass at making revisions noted. If you plan to make edits, please send a quick note around so we can track version control. I would like to add my suggestion that we include either in the opening, conclusion or both that there are 35 other recommendations, many of which there is wide spread consensus for support, based upon public comments, and that we, as the Working Party will be meeting to discuss recommendations on implementation. Please let me know if that continues to be acceptable to everyone. We still need to restructure the numbering as well, per our discussion. I'm happy to do that. Please let me know, though, if anyone else wants to make substantive changes and I'll wait to make the structure changes and incorporate my above comment. We are targeting delivering this to GNSO Council by Thursday, prior to the council meeting. If anyone from the BC or IPC can offer comments, that would be greatly helpful. There was no one on the last two calls and just want to make sure you do not object to this communication. Thanks so much for your continued support and commitment to this process! 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 -----Original Message----- From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 5:57 PM To: Jen Wolfe Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report Hi, I?ve attached a document to this email with the changes I suggested during today?s call, along with a couple more. As suggested by Chuck, I used a clean copy of the document following the edits provided by Bill, then made redline changes to that so that all changes following today?s call are clearly visible. Could you please forward this to the working party list for consideration? Thanks Jen. 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 philip at brandregistrygroup.org Wed Sep 23 15:37:22 2015 From: philip at brandregistrygroup.org (BRG) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 17:37:22 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] =?us-ascii?Q?RE:_=5Bgnso-review-dt=5D_GNSO_Review_Working_Party_Draft_Sta?= =?us-ascii?Q?tement_on_Westlake_Goverance's_Final_GNSO_Review_Report?= In-Reply-To: <95555D8C70D007418DC72CCFF7C7FA428035A643@E2K10-MBX3.net.in.iantel.com.uy> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496B334D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <192AE2DC-D904-403A-8E10-0024B5191642@gmail.com> <9212E199-2595-4634-9392-4D31C6DCC8BA@egyptig.org> <227853FB-CDE7-48CE-81A6-056428672F4D@egyptig.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496D11D4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496D1ED4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <95555D8C70D007418DC72CCFF7C7FA428035A643@E2K10-MBX3.net.in.iantel.com.uy> Message-ID: <6ADE50CB1C5B4BBC80017764ABDAA3D9@ZaparazziL11> I do feel this recommendation is typical of some of Westlake's approach. They have studiously avoided structural changes but are now retro-fitting a good principle (fair representation) on a flawed historic base (different SG models). By continuing to look back and not forward, this does the GNSO no favours. Philip -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Novoa, Osvaldo Sent: 23 September 2015 16:39 To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; Jen Wolfe; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Amr Elsadr Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance's Final GNSO Review Report Hello all, Although I have not participated in the discussions, I am the alternate to Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, ISPCP representative, I have been following the discussion. I think that the ISPCP cannot share this statement. First, in our opinion Westlake work was very good and sugested a lot of improvements. Second, regarding Recommendation 23 we are not totally against it, it has some merit, though we accept that it must be revised considering the particularities of the different groups in the GNSO. The arguments against having council representation for each constituency in the Council can be applied to the CSG and they could be valid, also the arguments for the contrary could also be applied to the NCSG. I think it is a point to be considered and not discarded without the comment of the community. I like Chuck's idea of each member of the group stating if it is in favour or against the recommendation. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa -----Mensaje original----- De: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] En nombre de Gomes, Chuck Enviado el: Martes, 22 de Septiembre de 2015 16:36 Para: Jen Wolfe; gnso-review-dt at icann.org CC: Amr Elsadr Asunto: RE: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance's Final GNSO Review Report Looks fine to me Jen. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Jen Wolfe [mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 2:43 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Amr Elsadr Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance's Final GNSO Review Report Thanks, Chuck. I am attaching a revised version of the draft communication. I accepted Amr's changes and added a few of my own (redlined in the attached document). I also made the formatting/renumbering changes. I went ahead and accepted the formatting changes to keep it easier to read. Please let me know if you have any concerns with the proposed revisions. If any one else would like to make revisions, please just let us know so we can continue to track versions appropriately. Again, we are targeting to provide this draft to council by Thursday before their meeting. If I don't receive any objections, I will provide to staff to circulate to GNSO Council on Thursday morning (EDT). Pending feedback from Council, we will either proceed with providing this to the OEC or, if there is objection in the community or from Council, we will notify the OEC that there is concern about Revised Recommendation 23 and that a more formal statement with be forthcoming, pending time for review and comment. Thanks again for your continued support of this effort- have a great day! 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 -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9:43 AM To: Jen Wolfe ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Amr Elsadr Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance's Final GNSO Review Report Amr's edits look fine to me. Jen - I fully support you adding your comments about the other recommendations and also restructuring as you think best. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 8:49 AM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Amr Elsadr Subject: FW: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance's Final GNSO Review Report I am forwarding the revised document from Amr. Thanks, Amr for taking the first pass at making revisions noted. If you plan to make edits, please send a quick note around so we can track version control. I would like to add my suggestion that we include either in the opening, conclusion or both that there are 35 other recommendations, many of which there is wide spread consensus for support, based upon public comments, and that we, as the Working Party will be meeting to discuss recommendations on implementation. Please let me know if that continues to be acceptable to everyone. We still need to restructure the numbering as well, per our discussion. I'm happy to do that. Please let me know, though, if anyone else wants to make substantive changes and I'll wait to make the structure changes and incorporate my above comment. We are targeting delivering this to GNSO Council by Thursday, prior to the council meeting. If anyone from the BC or IPC can offer comments, that would be greatly helpful. There was no one on the last two calls and just want to make sure you do not object to this communication. Thanks so much for your continued support and commitment to this process! 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 -----Original Message----- From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 5:57 PM To: Jen Wolfe Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance's Final GNSO Review Report Hi, I've attached a document to this email with the changes I suggested during today's call, along with a couple more. As suggested by Chuck, I used a clean copy of the document following the edits provided by Bill, then made redline changes to that so that all changes following today's call are clearly visible. Could you please forward this to the working party list for consideration? Thanks Jen. Amr ________________________________ From aelsadr at egyptig.org Thu Sep 24 17:10:12 2015 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 19:10:12 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_=5Bgnso-review-dt=5D_=5Bgnso-review-dt=5D?= =?windows-1252?Q?_GNSO_Review_Working_Party_Draft_Statement_on_W?= =?windows-1252?Q?estlake_Goverance=92s_Final_GNSO_Review_Report?= In-Reply-To: <95555D8C70D007418DC72CCFF7C7FA428035A643@E2K10-MBX3.net.in.iantel.com.uy> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496B334D@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <192AE2DC-D904-403A-8E10-0024B5191642@gmail.com> <9212E199-2595-4634-9392-4D31C6DCC8BA@egyptig.org> <227853FB-CDE7-48CE-81A6-056428672F4D@egyptig.org> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496D11D4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496D1ED4@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <95555D8C70D007418DC72CCFF7C7FA428035A643@E2K10-MBX3.net.in.iantel.com.uy> Message-ID: Hi J. Scott and Osvaldo, May I seek further clarification from both of you regarding your objections to this letter being a WP position? For one thing, you seem to both be under the impression that through this letter, the WP is taking a general position against constituency representation on the GNSO council, such as is the case with the CSG. I don?t see it that way. All the letter does is say that the WP does not believe that wired constituency representation on council is generalisable to all stakeholder groups (including the NCSG, which has constituencies) given the research done and reasoning provided in the final Westlake report and recommendations. It does not, in any way, state that the WP believes that the CSG should be denied its council seats allocated to its three constituencies. Rather that there are more considerations that need to be taken into account, and that these are currently decisions made by each SG independently. In addition, the letter is rather clear on the fact that the WP is only addressing the new recommendation 23 at this time, and not the rest of the final Westlake recommendations. So there is no criticism of any other work/recommendations of Westlake?s here at all. Would it be possible to have you sign off on this if a revision of the letter is performed to address the concerns you both have raised ? clarifying that the WP does not agree that recommendation 23 should be adopted, but that this position does not reflect any notion that constituency representation in the CSG is being objected to? I am asking you this with the assumption that you agree that Westlake should have done more, and taken more of the community feedback into consideration before making the recommendation. This includes feedback already provided and documented, as well as feedback consisting of collaborative work with the WP on development of the recommendation based on the data at our disposal. Thoughts? Thanks. Amr > On Sep 23, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Novoa, Osvaldo wrote: > > > Hello all, > Although I have not participated in the discussions, I am the alternate to Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, ISPCP representative, I have been following the discussion. > I think that the ISPCP cannot share this statement. First, in our opinion Westlake work was very good and sugested a lot of improvements. Second, regarding Recommendation 23 we are not totally against it, it has some merit, though we accept that it must be revised considering the particularities of the different groups in the GNSO. The arguments against having council representation for each constituency in the Council can be applied to the CSG and they could be valid, also the arguments for the contrary could also be applied to the NCSG. I think it is a point to be considered and not discarded without the comment of the community. > I like Chuck's idea of each member of the group stating if it is in favour or against the recommendation. > Best regards, > > > Osvaldo Novoa > > > > > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] En nombre de Gomes, Chuck > Enviado el: Martes, 22 de Septiembre de 2015 16:36 > Para: Jen Wolfe; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > CC: Amr Elsadr > Asunto: RE: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report > > > Looks fine to me Jen. > > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jen Wolfe [mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 2:43 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Cc: Amr Elsadr > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report > > Thanks, Chuck. I am attaching a revised version of the draft communication. I accepted Amr's changes and added a few of my own (redlined in the attached document). I also made the formatting/renumbering changes. I went ahead and accepted the formatting changes to keep it easier to read. Please let me know if you have any concerns with the proposed revisions. > > If any one else would like to make revisions, please just let us know so we can continue to track versions appropriately. Again, we are targeting to provide this draft to council by Thursday before their meeting. If I don't receive any objections, I will provide to staff to circulate to GNSO Council on Thursday morning (EDT). > > Pending feedback from Council, we will either proceed with providing this to the OEC or, if there is objection in the community or from Council, we will notify the OEC that there is concern about Revised Recommendation 23 and that a more formal statement with be forthcoming, pending time for review and comment. > > Thanks again for your continued support of this effort- have a great day! > > 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 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9:43 AM > To: Jen Wolfe ; gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Cc: Amr Elsadr > Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report > > Amr's edits look fine to me. > > Jen - I fully support you adding your comments about the other recommendations and also restructuring as you think best. > > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 8:49 AM > To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Cc: Amr Elsadr > Subject: FW: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report > > I am forwarding the revised document from Amr. Thanks, Amr for taking the first pass at making revisions noted. If you plan to make edits, please send a quick note around so we can track version control. > > I would like to add my suggestion that we include either in the opening, conclusion or both that there are 35 other recommendations, many of which there is wide spread consensus for support, based upon public comments, and that we, as the Working Party will be meeting to discuss recommendations on implementation. Please let me know if that continues to be acceptable to everyone. > > We still need to restructure the numbering as well, per our discussion. I'm happy to do that. Please let me know, though, if anyone else wants to make substantive changes and I'll wait to make the structure changes and incorporate my above comment. We are targeting delivering this to GNSO Council by Thursday, prior to the council meeting. > > If anyone from the BC or IPC can offer comments, that would be greatly helpful. There was no one on the last two calls and just want to make sure you do not object to this communication. > > Thanks so much for your continued support and commitment to this process! > > 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 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org] > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 5:57 PM > To: Jen Wolfe > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance?s Final GNSO Review Report > > Hi, > > I?ve attached a document to this email with the changes I suggested during today?s call, along with a couple more. As suggested by Chuck, I used a clean copy of the document following the edits provided by Bill, then made redline changes to that so that all changes following today?s call are clearly visible. > > Could you please forward this to the working party list for consideration? > > Thanks Jen. > > 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 jwolfe at wolfedomain.com Thu Sep 24 20:19:29 2015 From: jwolfe at wolfedomain.com (Jen Wolfe) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 20:19:29 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Follow Up to Council Meeting Message-ID: Hello GNSO Review Working Party, The draft of the proposed response to the OEC regarding Revised Recommendation 23 was discussed during today's GNSO Council meeting. The Council asked that we defer sending a formal statement to the OEC until everyone can review and respond from their respective groups. I spoke with staff following the Council presentation to confirm timing issues and wanted to highlight an important point. On Monday, the OEC is just being briefed by Westlake. They are not taking any action or planning to discuss any action until their meeting in Dublin. The next step will be for the OEC to consider the recommendations and determine what action to take. Accordingly, I recommend that we notify the OEC that the WP and the GNSO Council have concerns about Revised Recommendation 23, that we are working to prepare a more formal response and that they delay taking an action on Recommendation 23 until the community can properly respond. This would afford the necessary time to go back to your respective groups and discuss the response and to gain consensus on a written response to the OEC. I know that everyone is busy and adding on a rushed or urgent important communication is not in anyone's best interest. Please let me know if you agree or disagree with this approach. For next steps, we are working on scheduling one more call before Dublin so that we can prioritize the other 35 recommendations into what is workable and feasible versus what may not have consensus or be workable (i.e. Rec. 23 among some others). We can then head into Dublin to address the response to the OEC. Thank you again for your continued commitment to this process - it is greatly appreciated! 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Thu Sep 24 20:52:30 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 20:52:30 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: Follow Up to Council Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496D5134@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> I agree on this approach. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 4:19 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Amr Elsadr Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Follow Up to Council Meeting Hello GNSO Review Working Party, The draft of the proposed response to the OEC regarding Revised Recommendation 23 was discussed during today's GNSO Council meeting. The Council asked that we defer sending a formal statement to the OEC until everyone can review and respond from their respective groups. I spoke with staff following the Council presentation to confirm timing issues and wanted to highlight an important point. On Monday, the OEC is just being briefed by Westlake. They are not taking any action or planning to discuss any action until their meeting in Dublin. The next step will be for the OEC to consider the recommendations and determine what action to take. Accordingly, I recommend that we notify the OEC that the WP and the GNSO Council have concerns about Revised Recommendation 23, that we are working to prepare a more formal response and that they delay taking an action on Recommendation 23 until the community can properly respond. This would afford the necessary time to go back to your respective groups and discuss the response and to gain consensus on a written response to the OEC. I know that everyone is busy and adding on a rushed or urgent important communication is not in anyone's best interest. Please let me know if you agree or disagree with this approach. For next steps, we are working on scheduling one more call before Dublin so that we can prioritize the other 35 recommendations into what is workable and feasible versus what may not have consensus or be workable (i.e. Rec. 23 among some others). We can then head into Dublin to address the response to the OEC. Thank you again for your continued commitment to this process - it is greatly appreciated! 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Fri Sep 25 08:08:38 2015 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 10:08:38 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Follow Up to Council Meeting In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496D5134@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496D5134@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <18D5B6EC-25DE-4D94-8214-6B6F031896A9@gmail.com> Hi Jen I agree as well, but also think it?s a pity that the OEC will not know exactly what the ?concerns? you?ll allude to involve before meeting with Westlake. Perhaps you could at least let them know that if they?re curious about what?s being discussed but does not yet enjoy consensus can be found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-review-dt/msg00406.html? Best Bill > On Sep 24, 2015, at 10:52 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > I agree on this approach. > > Chuck > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe > Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 4:19 PM > To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Cc: Amr Elsadr > Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Follow Up to Council Meeting > > Hello GNSO Review Working Party, > > The draft of the proposed response to the OEC regarding Revised Recommendation 23 was discussed during today?s GNSO Council meeting. The Council asked that we defer sending a formal statement to the OEC until everyone can review and respond from their respective groups. > > I spoke with staff following the Council presentation to confirm timing issues and wanted to highlight an important point. On Monday, the OEC is just being briefed by Westlake. They are not taking any action or planning to discuss any action until their meeting in Dublin. The next step will be for the OEC to consider the recommendations and determine what action to take. > > Accordingly, I recommend that we notify the OEC that the WP and the GNSO Council have concerns about Revised Recommendation 23, that we are working to prepare a more formal response and that they delay taking an action on Recommendation 23 until the community can properly respond. > > This would afford the necessary time to go back to your respective groups and discuss the response and to gain consensus on a written response to the OEC. I know that everyone is busy and adding on a rushed or urgent important communication is not in anyone?s best interest. > > Please let me know if you agree or disagree with this approach. > > For next steps, we are working on scheduling one more call before Dublin so that we can prioritize the other 35 recommendations into what is workable and feasible versus what may not have consensus or be workable (i.e. Rec. 23 among some others). We can then head into Dublin to address the response to the OEC. > > Thank you again for your continued commitment to this process ? it is greatly appreciated! > > > > 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 ********************************************************* 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 Sep 25 17:01:10 2015 From: charla.shambley at icann.org (Charla Shambley) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:01:10 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Doodle Poll for Dublin Meeting Message-ID: Dear GNSO Review Working Party - Since ICANN54 is just around the corner, I'd like to schedule a face-to-face meeting in Dublin for the working party. I set up a doodle poll with some early morning options and will coordinate a breakfast for those of you that are available. Please click on the doodle poll link to provide your availability: http://doodle.com/poll/zcigurdm653cwyvv. I will close this poll on 2 October (next Friday). Thank you and enjoy your weekend! Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-578-8921 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5511 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Fri Sep 25 17:27:33 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:27:33 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review - Doodle Poll for Dublin Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496D64D6@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Charla, I marked the Tuesday option tentative because I likely could only participate for one hour, 8-9am local time. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Charla Shambley Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 1:01 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review - Doodle Poll for Dublin Meeting Dear GNSO Review Working Party - Since ICANN54 is just around the corner, I'd like to schedule a face-to-face meeting in Dublin for the working party. I set up a doodle poll with some early morning options and will coordinate a breakfast for those of you that are available. Please click on the doodle poll link to provide your availability: http://doodle.com/poll/zcigurdm653cwyvv. I will close this poll on 2 October (next Friday). Thank you and enjoy your weekend! Charla Charla K. Shambley Strategic Initiatives Program Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 310-578-8921 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5909 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 14:28:49 2015 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:28:49 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Follow Up to Council Meeting In-Reply-To: <18D5B6EC-25DE-4D94-8214-6B6F031896A9@gmail.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496D5134@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <18D5B6EC-25DE-4D94-8214-6B6F031896A9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0EDFC497-3213-415A-95F2-E4E9CB51F553@gmail.com> Hi I know there is a call in 3 1/2 hours but it?s looking like it may be difficult for me to make it. Is the intention to further discuss the letter on 23? It seems there may not be consensus to send it as a WG statement so would we instead do a coalition of the willing sign on? Is there also the intention to discuss the other recs beside 23? thanks Bill > On Sep 25, 2015, at 10:08 AM, William Drake wrote: > > Hi Jen > > I agree as well, but also think it?s a pity that the OEC will not know exactly what the ?concerns? you?ll allude to involve before meeting with Westlake. Perhaps you could at least let them know that if they?re curious about what?s being discussed but does not yet enjoy consensus can be found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-review-dt/msg00406.html? > > Best > > Bill > > >> On Sep 24, 2015, at 10:52 PM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: >> >> I agree on this approach. >> >> Chuck >> >> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org ] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe >> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 4:19 PM >> To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org >> Cc: Amr Elsadr >> Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Follow Up to Council Meeting >> >> Hello GNSO Review Working Party, >> >> The draft of the proposed response to the OEC regarding Revised Recommendation 23 was discussed during today?s GNSO Council meeting. The Council asked that we defer sending a formal statement to the OEC until everyone can review and respond from their respective groups. >> >> I spoke with staff following the Council presentation to confirm timing issues and wanted to highlight an important point. On Monday, the OEC is just being briefed by Westlake. They are not taking any action or planning to discuss any action until their meeting in Dublin. The next step will be for the OEC to consider the recommendations and determine what action to take. >> >> Accordingly, I recommend that we notify the OEC that the WP and the GNSO Council have concerns about Revised Recommendation 23, that we are working to prepare a more formal response and that they delay taking an action on Recommendation 23 until the community can properly respond. >> >> This would afford the necessary time to go back to your respective groups and discuss the response and to gain consensus on a written response to the OEC. I know that everyone is busy and adding on a rushed or urgent important communication is not in anyone?s best interest. >> >> Please let me know if you agree or disagree with this approach. >> >> For next steps, we are working on scheduling one more call before Dublin so that we can prioritize the other 35 recommendations into what is workable and feasible versus what may not have consensus or be workable (i.e. Rec. 23 among some others). We can then head into Dublin to address the response to the OEC. >> >> Thank you again for your continued commitment to this process ? it is greatly appreciated! >> >> >> >> 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 > ********************************************************* > 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 > ********************************************************* > ********************************************************* 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 jwolfe at wolfedomain.com Wed Sep 30 14:47:09 2015 From: jwolfe at wolfedomain.com (Jen Wolfe) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:47:09 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Follow Up to Council Meeting In-Reply-To: <0EDFC497-3213-415A-95F2-E4E9CB51F553@gmail.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496D5134@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <18D5B6EC-25DE-4D94-8214-6B6F031896A9@gmail.com> <0EDFC497-3213-415A-95F2-E4E9CB51F553@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Bill, The purpose of today?s call is to discuss the other 35 recommendations so that we can prioritize which ones have wide spread support and are implementable and then separate out those that might require more discussion, consideration, etc. I?ll provide a brief update during the call, but the OEC granted us additional time to finalize a formal statement on Revised Rec. 23 ? so we have time to gain consensus on a Working Party written response before they would take any action on it. Also, consensus discussion on that call was to outright reject Revised Rec. 23. I still think it?s important to get community feedback and complete our response, but it may become a moot point if they plan to reject it. I look forward to talking with those of you who can make the call today. Thanks again for your continued support of this process! 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: William Drake [mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:29 AM To: Jen Wolfe Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Follow Up to Council Meeting Hi I know there is a call in 3 1/2 hours but it?s looking like it may be difficult for me to make it. Is the intention to further discuss the letter on 23? It seems there may not be consensus to send it as a WG statement so would we instead do a coalition of the willing sign on? Is there also the intention to discuss the other recs beside 23? thanks Bill On Sep 25, 2015, at 10:08 AM, William Drake > wrote: Hi Jen I agree as well, but also think it?s a pity that the OEC will not know exactly what the ?concerns? you?ll allude to involve before meeting with Westlake. Perhaps you could at least let them know that if they?re curious about what?s being discussed but does not yet enjoy consensus can be found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-review-dt/msg00406.html? Best Bill On Sep 24, 2015, at 10:52 PM, Gomes, Chuck > wrote: I agree on this approach. Chuck From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 4:19 PM To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Cc: Amr Elsadr Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Follow Up to Council Meeting Hello GNSO Review Working Party, The draft of the proposed response to the OEC regarding Revised Recommendation 23 was discussed during today?s GNSO Council meeting. The Council asked that we defer sending a formal statement to the OEC until everyone can review and respond from their respective groups. I spoke with staff following the Council presentation to confirm timing issues and wanted to highlight an important point. On Monday, the OEC is just being briefed by Westlake. They are not taking any action or planning to discuss any action until their meeting in Dublin. The next step will be for the OEC to consider the recommendations and determine what action to take. Accordingly, I recommend that we notify the OEC that the WP and the GNSO Council have concerns about Revised Recommendation 23, that we are working to prepare a more formal response and that they delay taking an action on Recommendation 23 until the community can properly respond. This would afford the necessary time to go back to your respective groups and discuss the response and to gain consensus on a written response to the OEC. I know that everyone is busy and adding on a rushed or urgent important communication is not in anyone?s best interest. Please let me know if you agree or disagree with this approach. For next steps, we are working on scheduling one more call before Dublin so that we can prioritize the other 35 recommendations into what is workable and feasible versus what may not have consensus or be workable (i.e. Rec. 23 among some others). We can then head into Dublin to address the response to the OEC. Thank you again for your continued commitment to this process ? it is greatly appreciated! 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 ********************************************************* 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 ********************************************************* ********************************************************* 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 aelsadr at egyptig.org Wed Sep 30 15:28:30 2015 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:28:30 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Follow Up to Council Meeting In-Reply-To: References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496D5134@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <18D5B6EC-25DE-4D94-8214-6B6F031896A9@gmail.com> <0EDFC497-3213-415A-95F2-E4E9CB51F553@gmail.com> Message-ID: <03998C67-6118-49C6-AEE8-E7CCF9DA8060@egyptig.org> Hi, I will also likely not be able to make today?s call, but will listen to the recording when it is available, and comment on-list if I need to. Jen?, thanks for the update regarding the OEC. I do hope this group can reach consensus on the letter on the revised recommendation 23. I suspect that consensus here would be helpful to the OEC when they make a final decision on what to do with 23. Furthermore, this not being a group chartered by the GNSO Council, I?m not confident the Council will be able to assist constructively in the absence of a clear direction provided by the working party. I very much encourage folks to work towards a draft letter that we can all live with. Thanks again. Amr > On Sep 30, 2015, at 4:47 PM, Jen Wolfe wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > The purpose of today?s call is to discuss the other 35 recommendations so that we can prioritize which ones have wide spread support and are implementable and then separate out those that might require more discussion, consideration, etc. > > I?ll provide a brief update during the call, but the OEC granted us additional time to finalize a formal statement on Revised Rec. 23 ? so we have time to gain consensus on a Working Party written response before they would take any action on it. Also, consensus discussion on that call was to outright reject Revised Rec. 23. I still think it?s important to get community feedback and complete our response, but it may become a moot point if they plan to reject it. > > I look forward to talking with those of you who can make the call today. Thanks again for your continued support of this process! > > 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: William Drake [mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:29 AM > To: Jen Wolfe > Cc: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] Follow Up to Council Meeting > > Hi > > I know there is a call in 3 1/2 hours but it?s looking like it may be difficult for me to make it. > > Is the intention to further discuss the letter on 23? It seems there may not be consensus to send it as a WG statement so would we instead do a coalition of the willing sign on? > > Is there also the intention to discuss the other recs beside 23? > > thanks > > Bill > > > On Sep 25, 2015, at 10:08 AM, William Drake wrote: > > Hi Jen > > I agree as well, but also think it?s a pity that the OEC will not know exactly what the ?concerns? you?ll allude to involve before meeting with Westlake. Perhaps you could at least let them know that if they?re curious about what?s being discussed but does not yet enjoy consensus can be found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-review-dt/msg00406.html? > > Best > > Bill > > > On Sep 24, 2015, at 10:52 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > I agree on this approach. > > Chuck > > From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe > Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 4:19 PM > To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org > Cc: Amr Elsadr > Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Follow Up to Council Meeting > > Hello GNSO Review Working Party, > > The draft of the proposed response to the OEC regarding Revised Recommendation 23 was discussed during today?s GNSO Council meeting. The Council asked that we defer sending a formal statement to the OEC until everyone can review and respond from their respective groups. > > I spoke with staff following the Council presentation to confirm timing issues and wanted to highlight an important point. On Monday, the OEC is just being briefed by Westlake. They are not taking any action or planning to discuss any action until their meeting in Dublin. The next step will be for the OEC to consider the recommendations and determine what action to take. > > Accordingly, I recommend that we notify the OEC that the WP and the GNSO Council have concerns about Revised Recommendation 23, that we are working to prepare a more formal response and that they delay taking an action on Recommendation 23 until the community can properly respond. > > This would afford the necessary time to go back to your respective groups and discuss the response and to gain consensus on a written response to the OEC. I know that everyone is busy and adding on a rushed or urgent important communication is not in anyone?s best interest. > > Please let me know if you agree or disagree with this approach. > > For next steps, we are working on scheduling one more call before Dublin so that we can prioritize the other 35 recommendations into what is workable and feasible versus what may not have consensus or be workable (i.e. Rec. 23 among some others). We can then head into Dublin to address the response to the OEC. > > Thank you again for your continued commitment to this process ? it is greatly appreciated! > > > > 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 > > ********************************************************* > 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 > ********************************************************* > > > ********************************************************* > 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 > ********************************************************* From rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Wed Sep 30 15:31:43 2015 From: rudi.vansnick at isoc.be (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:31:43 +0200 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. Message-ID: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Wed Sep 30 15:45:10 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:45:10 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> Message-ID: <560C0386.6030508@acm.org> Good statement. Thanks avri On 30-Sep-15 11:31, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > 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 > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Sep 30 16:14:59 2015 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:14:59 -0400 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> Message-ID: <560C0A83.8090808@mail.utoronto.ca> Excellent statement Rudi, thanks very much!! Stephanie Perrin On 2015-09-30 11:31, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Wed Sep 30 17:49:41 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:49:41 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwolfe at wolfedomain.com Wed Sep 30 17:56:25 2015 From: jwolfe at wolfedomain.com (Jen Wolfe) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:56:25 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> Message-ID: Rudi, Thank you so much for your email and remarks. These are all very important points, which need to be addressed. I know we have a call scheduled to start here shortly. In the interest of using our time as productively as possible today, I?d like to suggest that we proceed as planned with talking through the other 35 recommendations and deciding if we, as the Working Party, think each recommendation is one that is generally supported by the community and feasible or if we think it is not generally supported or not feasible. We can base this on the public comments received on the recommendations and input from your respective groups. This will help us to be prepared for the upcoming Dublin meeting. If the OEC were to accept your recommendation that this be treated as a ?Green Paper,? we would still want to be prepared with our opinion on which recommendations would be appropriate to move into implementation so I think however the issue you raised is resolved, our recommendations will be meaningful in an effort for continuous improvement in the GNSO. There were 178 members of our community who did complete surveys and 40+ people who were interviewed, so I think taking a look at the recommendations and providing our perspective would be helpful to the community. I look forward to talking with you all shortly! 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 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larisa.gurnick at icann.org Wed Sep 30 18:32:30 2015 From: larisa.gurnick at icann.org (Larisa B. Gurnick) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 18:32:30 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Feasibility Assessment worksheet Message-ID: Dear GNSO Review Members, The Feasibility Assessment worksheet being used on the call to assess recommendations can also be accessed on the GNSO Review Working Party wiki - https://community.icann.org/x/SptYAw. Larisa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgomes at Verisign.com Wed Sep 30 19:15:16 2015 From: cgomes at Verisign.com (Gomes, Chuck) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:15:16 +0000 Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23. In-Reply-To: <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> References: <91ACE74C-B0A1-46F0-880F-AF7590814048@isoc.be> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCD1A@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <560C3287.1070900@lanfranco.net> Message-ID: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E496DCF78@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: