[gnso-review-dt] Follow Up to Council Meeting

[Jen Wolfe]

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 <jwolfe at wolfedomain.com>
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 <wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> 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 <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:

I agree on this approach.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 4:19 PM
To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto: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<http://www.ncuc.org/>
william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org<http://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<http://www.ncuc.org>
william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org<http://www.williamdrake.org>
Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
*********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20150930/eb9a946d/attachment.html>