final reminder -- Proposed draft for IRTP-B working group
hi all, this is a last call for comments on the draft constituency statement that Berry, Chris and i prepared for the IRTP-B working group. i haven't gotten any comments so far, so i thought i'd give it one last go before pushing this along to the working group. my hope is to fold any comments you might have into the draft by late tomorrow, push that revised version (if there is one) back out to you all for final reactions over the weekend and push it to the working group early next week. if there aren't any comments today (loosely defined), this is the draft that i'll send. thanks! mikey - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
Mikey, generally okay, and much appreciation for the team's work. I wondered about one thing == 60 days. but only wondering. not objecting.
From: mike@haven2.com To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] final reminder -- Proposed draft for IRTP-B working group Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:49:19 -0600
hi all,
this is a last call for comments on the draft constituency statement that Berry, Chris and i prepared for the IRTP-B working group. i haven't gotten any comments so far, so i thought i'd give it one last go before pushing this along to the working group. my hope is to fold any comments you might have into the draft by late tomorrow, push that revised version (if there is one) back out to you all for final reactions over the weekend and push it to the working group early next week.
if there aren't any comments today (loosely defined), this is the draft that i'll send.
thanks!
mikey
Hello All, Listed below is an article that I wrote in connection with ICANN's proposed new gTLD Expression of Interest initiative. While I think there is some good that could come of this proposal, as I have tried to articulate in this article there is potentially a lot of bad, especially when you look at the public forum which has basically been flooded by prospective TLD applicants. There is less than 10 days before ICANN staff summarizes the public forum input for consideration by the ICANN Board at its early December meeting. As Mike Rodenbaugh previously noted there is probably not enough time for the constituency to reach an opinion, and Ron Andruff has already taken a position in line with the prospective TLD applicants which is kind of the polar opposite to the position advocated in my paper. This is kind of a big issue which appears to be getting lost in the DAG 3.0 comment period and the upcoming holiday season. I really do believe individual BC members should weigh in on this important issue one way or another. Best regards, Michael FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 18, 2009 New gTLD Expressions of Interest: Proceed with Caution Palage Offers Suggestions to Ensure Useful Insight is Gathered in Process WASHINGTON D.C. - The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) should look to precedents if it chooses to move forward with soliciting Expressions of Interests for new Generic Top Level Domains, states Adjunct Fellow Michael Palage in " <http://ga1.org/ct/-7Xbtas1Mm48/> New gTLD Expressions of Interest: Proceed with Caution," released today by The Progress & Freedom Foundation. Previous EOIs were successful in helping ICANN gather pertinent data to judge likely gTLD demand and make fact-based decisions. In the <http://ga1.org/ct/-7Xbtas1Mm48/> paper, Palage, a former ICANN board member, states that the Expression of Interest, if well executed, could help to address a number of the remaining issues with implementation of new gTLDs. If executed improperly, however, the initiative will likely erode confidence in the new gTLD process and negatively impact ICANN's evaluation in the upcoming reviews under ICANN's new Affirmation of Commitments. Palage warns against proposals to make participation in the EOI a condition for participating in the first new gTLD round. He also warns against instituting substantial fees to file, stating that both proposals deviate from established precedent. Palage explains that such actions would transform a fact-based gathering EOI into a "front-running scheme for insiders to reserve their space at the front of the new gTLD line." The proposal would fail to create a level playing field for potential applicants. Moreover, this proposed front-running approach would likely only increase ICANN's litigation risks by appearing to grant a license or privilege in a process which may ultimately diverge from present expectations. "The path forward for ICANN is a road that it has previously traveled - and one which has served it well," concludes Palage. "There is little benefit to deviating from these established precedents to benefit the narrow interests of a small number of TLD applicants whose business plans have been jeopardized because of ICANN's decision to listen to the global community by slowing down and getting things right." " <http://ga1.org/ct/-7Xbtas1Mm48/> New gTLD Expressions of Interest: Proceed with Caution" is available on the <http://www.pff.org/> PFF website. The Progress & Freedom Foundation is a market-oriented think tank that studies the digital revolution and its implications for public policy. It is a 501(c)(3) research & educational organization.
Dear colleagues, In response to Mike Palages email below and EOI article, I believe that he has put forward some good critical thinking for us all. However, contrary to his assertion that his comments are at the polar opposite of my EOI posting, I am of like mind with regard to much that Mike has said. I take issue with the use of the terms front runners and insiders for the simple reason that using such names are a cheap shot. They are insulting to many of us who put in the hours and hours of volunteer work within ICANN (in my case, participating on the GNSO Operations Work Team and the OSC, along with responding to BC issues). It poses the question: Does the fact that a regular participant in the debates and dialogues within the BC and/or the greater ICANN community for the last decade earn one such titles simply because they are also party to the new gTLD process? If so, I fear Mike may have tarred himself with his own brush. But, at the end of the day, all of that is of no relevance The bigger issue is this: With ICANN having belabored the issue of introducing new TLDs for years on end virtually from its inception until now is it possible that anyone, any company, or any other entity interested in this process doesnt know about it? For my part, I find that hard to believe. I believe that those who choose to hide behind this strawman argument rather than engaging in a dialogue on ways forward, e.g., running processes in parallel, as is suggested by the very existence of the EOI, are being obstructionist. In closing, I would like to reiterate two things. First, I am in agreement with Mike that a principled way forward vis-à-vis the EOI is the ONLY way to go. I fully support that in whatever shape or form it should take. Second, I, too, am recommending that you post your comments! Comments need to be posted on both the EOI and DAG v3 changes/amendments. I sense people are tiring of the process and thus are becoming more willing to let things go that they may have held strong feelings about. This is tantamount to abandoning our bottom up process, so I, like Mike, strongly encourage you to post your positions to make sure that staff hears enough voices to draw appropriate conclusions from, rather than having them make judgment calls. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859 _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: 2009-11-18 20:03 To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN Expression of Interest Public Forum Hello All, Listed below is an article that I wrote in connection with ICANNs proposed new gTLD Expression of Interest initiative. While I think there is some good that could come of this proposal, as I have tried to articulate in this article there is potentially a lot of bad, especially when you look at the public forum which has basically been flooded by prospective TLD applicants. There is less than 10 days before ICANN staff summarizes the public forum input for consideration by the ICANN Board at its early December meeting. As Mike Rodenbaugh previously noted there is probably not enough time for the constituency to reach an opinion, and Ron Andruff has already taken a position in line with the prospective TLD applicants which is kind of the polar opposite to the position advocated in my paper. This is kind of a big issue which appears to be getting lost in the DAG 3.0 comment period and the upcoming holiday season. I really do believe individual BC members should weigh in on this important issue one way or another. Best regards, Michael FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 18, 2009 New gTLD Expressions of Interest: Proceed with Caution Palage Offers Suggestions to Ensure Useful Insight is Gathered in Process WASHINGTON D.C. - The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) should look to precedents if it chooses to move forward with soliciting Expressions of Interests for new Generic Top Level Domains, states Adjunct Fellow Michael Palage in " <http://ga1.org/ct/-7Xbtas1Mm48/> New gTLD Expressions of Interest: Proceed with Caution," released today by The Progress & Freedom Foundation. Previous EOIs were successful in helping ICANN gather pertinent data to judge likely gTLD demand and make fact-based decisions. In the <http://ga1.org/ct/-7Xbtas1Mm48/> paper, Palage, a former ICANN board member, states that the Expression of Interest, if well executed, could help to address a number of the remaining issues with implementation of new gTLDs. If executed improperly, however, the initiative will likely erode confidence in the new gTLD process and negatively impact ICANN's evaluation in the upcoming reviews under ICANN's new Affirmation of Commitments. Palage warns against proposals to make participation in the EOI a condition for participating in the first new gTLD round. He also warns against instituting substantial fees to file, stating that both proposals deviate from established precedent. Palage explains that such actions would transform a fact-based gathering EOI into a "front-running scheme for insiders to reserve their space at the front of the new gTLD line." The proposal would fail to create a level playing field for potential applicants. Moreover, this proposed front-running approach would likely only increase ICANN's litigation risks by appearing to grant a license or privilege in a process which may ultimately diverge from present expectations. "The path forward for ICANN is a road that it has previously traveled - and one which has served it well," concludes Palage. "There is little benefit to deviating from these established precedents to benefit the narrow interests of a small number of TLD applicants whose business plans have been jeopardized because of ICANN's decision to listen to the global community by slowing down and getting things right." " <http://ga1.org/ct/-7Xbtas1Mm48/> New gTLD Expressions of Interest: Proceed with Caution" is available on the <http://www.pff.org/> PFF website. The Progress & Freedom Foundation is a market-oriented think tank that studies the digital revolution and its implications for public policy. It is a 501(c)(3) research & educational organization.
hi all, i was wondering what was up with the Executive Committee elections. has a schedule been set? mikey - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
Me too -- it is important that we move ahead particularly as we will be without a secretariat to run the elections by the end of December. I propose that we open a period for a full slate of nominations as early as next week to complete the elections before Christmas. Lz On 25 Nov 2009, at 01:35, Mike O'Connor wrote:
hi all,
i was wondering what was up with the Executive Committee elections. has a schedule been set?
mikey
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
On an election timetable, we had discussed this in light of the timing specified in the new Charter and intervening events. Seoul - just over Charter - just over IGF - just over US Thanksgiving weekend is 26 - 29 November Eid 27-29 November Christmas a month later, but many people will be absent from 18 December this year given the timing of Christmas day. Our Charter calls for 2+1+1 = 4 weeks for the election. On this basis, we wondered if the better option would be for members to discuss during December, who may be interested in doing which job and then we would call a formal election period in early January. Otherwise we risk rushing the new more relaxed election cycle and undermining exactly what it was supposed to achieve. Philip
Philip, I support your proposal to devote December, given the various holidays and the IGF decompress, and hold the elections in January. Thanks for your analysis of the calender. I think it helps to put the planning cycle into perspective. I would like to ask that the BC have a briefing call from the ICANN staff on the kinds of services that are available to provide parts of the secretariat services. That would be helpful to all BC members, so that we then understand what needs to be provided by a contracted Adminstrator for secretariat services. Should we have nominations then in the first week of January? Was that the proposal? Just to be fully clear. Marilyn Cade
From: philip.sheppard@aim.be To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] status of elections? Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:20:56 +0100
On an election timetable, we had discussed this in light of the timing specified in the new Charter and intervening events.
Seoul - just over Charter - just over IGF - just over US Thanksgiving weekend is 26 - 29 November Eid 27-29 November Christmas a month later, but many people will be absent from 18 December this year given the timing of Christmas day.
Our Charter calls for 2+1+1 = 4 weeks for the election.
On this basis, we wondered if the better option would be for members to discuss during December, who may be interested in doing which job and then we would call a formal election period in early January. Otherwise we risk rushing the new more relaxed election cycle and undermining exactly what it was supposed to achieve.
Philip
Yes nominations would probably be wef 4 January. Exact election cycle will be advised in due course. Philip
Philip makes a good case for starting the 4 week election cycle in early January. The intervening weeks could be useful, as he says, if we can openly discuss the multiple roles available and potential candidate interest. I suggest we start by circulating a list of positions. Would the interested candidates out there (you know who you are) be willing to provide an "Expression of Interest" ? That could be very helpful in distributing our talent widely across the field of positions available. --Steve DelBianco On 11/25/09 4:20 AM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote: On an election timetable, we had discussed this in light of the timing specified in the new Charter and intervening events. Seoul - just over Charter - just over IGF - just over US Thanksgiving weekend is 26 - 29 November Eid 27-29 November Christmas a month later, but many people will be absent from 18 December this year given the timing of Christmas day. Our Charter calls for 2+1+1 = 4 weeks for the election. On this basis, we wondered if the better option would be for members to discuss during December, who may be interested in doing which job and then we would call a formal election period in early January. Otherwise we risk rushing the new more relaxed election cycle and undermining exactly what it was supposed to achieve. Philip
good idea Steve. here's the list of positions from the new charter. by the way, thanks to Gary for posting the charter to our web site. The Constituency will have an Executive Committee comprised as follows: • A Chair • A Vice Chair for policy coordination • A Vice Chair for finance and operations • A representative to the Commercial Stakeholder Group • Any Constituency members selected as Council members. The Chair, Vice Chairs, and CSG representative may not simultaneously be Council members except in extraordinary circumstance such as a short remaining term or lack of nomination. so we have four positions to elect -- a chair, two vice-chairs and a CSG representative. being the sort of fellow that enjoys mopping the floors and ensuring that the trains run on time, i'd like to express interest in the finance and operations slot. i'd happily step aside if somebody else had their eye on it though. i'm especially keen to step aside if a woman type person is interested, as i think our reps and officers are currently all male (counsellors, credentials committee, nom-com rep... am i missing somebody?) which strikes me as a Bad Thing. i'll write up a more formal expression of interest over the next few days. come on you others, let's get those names in the hat. :-) mikey On Nov 25, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
Philip makes a good case for starting the 4 week election cycle in early January.
The intervening weeks could be useful, as he says, if we can openly discuss the multiple roles available and potential candidate interest.
I suggest we start by circulating a list of positions. Would the interested candidates out there (you know who you are) be willing to provide an "Expression of Interest" ?
That could be very helpful in distributing our talent widely across the field of positions available.
--Steve DelBianco
On 11/25/09 4:20 AM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote:
On an election timetable, we had discussed this in light of the timing specified in the new Charter and intervening events.
Seoul - just over Charter - just over IGF - just over US Thanksgiving weekend is 26 - 29 November Eid 27-29 November Christmas a month later, but many people will be absent from 18 December this year given the timing of Christmas day.
Our Charter calls for 2+1+1 = 4 weeks for the election.
On this basis, we wondered if the better option would be for members to discuss during December, who may be interested in doing which job and then we would call a formal election period in early January. Otherwise we risk rushing the new more relaxed election cycle and undermining exactly what it was supposed to achieve.
Philip
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
participants (7)
-
Liz Williams -
Marilyn Cade -
Michael D. Palage -
Mike O'Connor -
Philip Sheppard -
Ron Andruff -
Steve DelBianco