Status/report from ACSO meeting
Hi, Just got out of a ACSO meeting where the topic of the meeting for Seoul was discussed. The GAC has suggested that the Seoul ACSO meeting focus on a topic from their letter to the Board Chair of 18 Aug 09. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-dengate-thrush-18aug09-en.pd... Specially based on the following sentence: "The GAC remains concerned that the threshold question has not been answered whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the potential harms." So the topic would be: Whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the potential harms We have all been asked to get feedback from the various SOs and ACs before next week. I have also reported this under the status section of the Agenda for this week. a.
Should be an interesting and diverse debate but it will come down to one side's opinions versus the other's. Isn't that basically where we started in the New gTLD PDP process? Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 6:04 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Status/report from ACSO meeting
Hi,
Just got out of a ACSO meeting where the topic of the meeting for Seoul was discussed.
The GAC has suggested that the Seoul ACSO meeting focus on a topic from their letter to the Board Chair of 18 Aug 09. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-dengate-thrush -18aug09-en.pdf
Specially based on the following sentence:
"The GAC remains concerned that the threshold question has not been answered whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the potential harms."
So the topic would be:
Whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the potential harms
We have all been asked to get feedback from the various SOs and ACs before next week.
I have also reported this under the status section of the Agenda for this week.
a.
Hi, while not the same words, pretty much what i said. but i promised to report it in a neutral manner. GAC is being rather insistent. they say it covers all the topics they think are interesting. the pretty much refused (not in so few words) to hold the meeting on a Monday unless they felt the topic was one of interest to them. i figured the GNSO was fine with not having the meeting at all and said so. but also said that the GNSO was not proposing that the meeting be cancelled. a. On 2 Sep 2009, at 00:14, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Should be an interesting and diverse debate but it will come down to one side's opinions versus the other's. Isn't that basically where we started in the New gTLD PDP process?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 6:04 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Status/report from ACSO meeting
Hi,
Just got out of a ACSO meeting where the topic of the meeting for Seoul was discussed.
The GAC has suggested that the Seoul ACSO meeting focus on a topic from their letter to the Board Chair of 18 Aug 09. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-dengate-thrush -18aug09-en.pdf
Specially based on the following sentence:
"The GAC remains concerned that the threshold question has not been answered whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the potential harms."
So the topic would be:
Whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the potential harms
We have all been asked to get feedback from the various SOs and ACs before next week.
I have also reported this under the status section of the Agenda for this week.
a.
Thanks Avri, were there other additional topics proposed? This one proposed by GAC is already chosen as the only topic? thanks Olga 2009/9/1 Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>
Hi,
while not the same words, pretty much what i said. but i promised to report it in a neutral manner.
GAC is being rather insistent. they say it covers all the topics they think are interesting.
the pretty much refused (not in so few words) to hold the meeting on a Monday unless they felt the topic was one of interest to them.
i figured the GNSO was fine with not having the meeting at all and said so. but also said that the GNSO was not proposing that the meeting be cancelled.
a.
On 2 Sep 2009, at 00:14, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Should be an interesting and diverse debate but it will come down to one
side's opinions versus the other's. Isn't that basically where we started in the New gTLD PDP process?
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 6:04 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Status/report from ACSO meeting
Hi,
Just got out of a ACSO meeting where the topic of the meeting for Seoul was discussed.
The GAC has suggested that the Seoul ACSO meeting focus on a topic from their letter to the Board Chair of 18 Aug 09. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-dengate-thrush -18aug09-en.pdf
Specially based on the following sentence:
"The GAC remains concerned that the threshold question has not been answered whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the potential harms."
So the topic would be:
Whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the potential harms
We have all been asked to get feedback from the various SOs and ACs before next week.
I have also reported this under the status section of the Agenda for this week.
a.
-- Olga Cavalli, Dr. Ing. www.south-ssig.com.ar
hi, No other topics were suggested at this meeting. At the last meeting I had suggested the topic that had been recommended at one of our meetings: Malicious usage in new gTLDs. While there was some interest in this, the GAC topic was seen as encompassing this as a subtopic. Though we did not discuss it per se. a. On 2 Sep 2009, at 01:04, Olga Cavalli wrote:
Thanks Avri, were there other additional topics proposed? This one proposed by GAC is already chosen as the only topic? thanks Olga
2009/9/1 Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>
Hi,
while not the same words, pretty much what i said. but i promised to report it in a neutral manner.
GAC is being rather insistent. they say it covers all the topics they think are interesting.
the pretty much refused (not in so few words) to hold the meeting on a Monday unless they felt the topic was one of interest to them.
i figured the GNSO was fine with not having the meeting at all and said so. but also said that the GNSO was not proposing that the meeting be cancelled.
a.
On 2 Sep 2009, at 00:14, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Should be an interesting and diverse debate but it will come down to one side's opinions versus the other's. Isn't that basically where we started in the New gTLD PDP process?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 6:04 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Status/report from ACSO meeting
Hi,
Just got out of a ACSO meeting where the topic of the meeting for Seoul was discussed.
The GAC has suggested that the Seoul ACSO meeting focus on a topic from their letter to the Board Chair of 18 Aug 09. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-dengate-thrush -18aug09-en.pdf
Specially based on the following sentence:
"The GAC remains concerned that the threshold question has not been answered whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the potential harms."
So the topic would be:
Whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the potential harms
We have all been asked to get feedback from the various SOs and ACs before next week.
I have also reported this under the status section of the Agenda for this week.
a.
-- Olga Cavalli, Dr. Ing. www.south-ssig.com.ar
OK. Here's Adrian's perspective. I am sick and tired of the GAC throwing stones from a distance and not getting their hands dirty. Why don't they prove that their isn't demand and that there will be no benefit to consumers? I met with the Australian GAC representative yesterday and I am concerned that the GAC is simply three voices in a room that push an agenda shared by those three voices. I propose the following; - ignore their request to participate based on the fact that we have simply dealt with these issues long ago and that they are somewhat fruitless discussions at this 11th hour - ask them to define the consensus and how it is generated in the GAC, in particular with respect to this particular point of view on new gTLD's We all have far too much to do. As far as prioritizing work and discussions within the GNSO Council I believe this would fit nicely towards the bottom (coincidentally where my football team finished this season!). Thanks. Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, 2 September 2009 8:22 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Re: [offlist] Status/report from ACSO meeting Hi, while not the same words, pretty much what i said. but i promised to report it in a neutral manner. GAC is being rather insistent. they say it covers all the topics they think are interesting. the pretty much refused (not in so few words) to hold the meeting on a Monday unless they felt the topic was one of interest to them. i figured the GNSO was fine with not having the meeting at all and said so. but also said that the GNSO was not proposing that the meeting be cancelled. a. On 2 Sep 2009, at 00:14, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Should be an interesting and diverse debate but it will come down to one side's opinions versus the other's. Isn't that basically where we started in the New gTLD PDP process?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 6:04 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Status/report from ACSO meeting
Hi,
Just got out of a ACSO meeting where the topic of the meeting for Seoul was discussed.
The GAC has suggested that the Seoul ACSO meeting focus on a topic from their letter to the Board Chair of 18 Aug 09. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-dengate-thrush -18aug09-en.pdf
Specially based on the following sentence:
"The GAC remains concerned that the threshold question has not been answered whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the potential harms."
So the topic would be:
Whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the potential harms
We have all been asked to get feedback from the various SOs and ACs before next week.
I have also reported this under the status section of the Agenda for this week.
a.
While we're being candid and with the caveat that I am not addressing the merits of the GAC request . . .. I have a strong preference that the session - if it happens on Monday or at all - focus on a substantive policy/Policy issue and, ideally, one in which the ACSO participant organizations have at least some common interest. Do I think that it should be malicious conduct/consumer protection? Absolutely. Does it have to be? No. We're all traveling too far and the F2F time is too valuable to spend it on topics that can be handled effectively remotely. In my view, the topics from the Sydney ACSO meeting were just that. My two cents. K -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 8:10 PM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Re: [offlist] Status/report from ACSO meeting OK. Here's Adrian's perspective. I am sick and tired of the GAC throwing stones from a distance and not getting their hands dirty. Why don't they prove that their isn't demand and that there will be no benefit to consumers? I met with the Australian GAC representative yesterday and I am concerned that the GAC is simply three voices in a room that push an agenda shared by those three voices. I propose the following; - ignore their request to participate based on the fact that we have simply dealt with these issues long ago and that they are somewhat fruitless discussions at this 11th hour - ask them to define the consensus and how it is generated in the GAC, in particular with respect to this particular point of view on new gTLD's We all have far too much to do. As far as prioritizing work and discussions within the GNSO Council I believe this would fit nicely towards the bottom (coincidentally where my football team finished this season!). Thanks. Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, 2 September 2009 8:22 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Re: [offlist] Status/report from ACSO meeting Hi, while not the same words, pretty much what i said. but i promised to report it in a neutral manner. GAC is being rather insistent. they say it covers all the topics they think are interesting. the pretty much refused (not in so few words) to hold the meeting on a Monday unless they felt the topic was one of interest to them. i figured the GNSO was fine with not having the meeting at all and said so. but also said that the GNSO was not proposing that the meeting be cancelled. a. On 2 Sep 2009, at 00:14, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Should be an interesting and diverse debate but it will come down to one side's opinions versus the other's. Isn't that basically where we
started in the New gTLD PDP process?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 6:04 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Status/report from ACSO meeting
Hi,
Just got out of a ACSO meeting where the topic of the meeting for Seoul was discussed.
The GAC has suggested that the Seoul ACSO meeting focus on a topic from their letter to the Board Chair of 18 Aug 09. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-dengate-thrush -18aug09-en.pdf
Specially based on the following sentence:
"The GAC remains concerned that the threshold question has not been answered whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the potential harms."
So the topic would be:
Whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the potential harms
We have all been asked to get feedback from the various SOs and ACs before next week.
I have also reported this under the status section of the Agenda for this week.
a.
Avri, Chuck, Agree with the both of you that this is not a particular useful topic to have at the ACSO meeting as it will just be a slugging match between the gTLD pros and cons. I don't see who would be able to give factual information on consumer demand for new gTLDs, so it would just be everyone voicing their opinion. That's exactly what has been happening for the last couple of years anyway so in what way would such a session be productive? Plus I have to say I find the GAC's attitude surprising ("either run our topic or we're not coming!"). I felt at the previous two ACSO sessions they were very supportive of the whole concept and very open about it. Any idea why the apparent change of attitude? As for possible topic choices, this session being an opportunity for a get-together between the various committees and organisations that make up ICANN and that ensure that ICANN can actually function, I would think it would be more useful to have folks discuss ways to improve the ICANN, ACs and SOs processes. As these are brainstorming sessions, I think we can be quite daring in our choices of topics. How about something like: "with volunteer burnout becoming a pressing problem, should ICANN look into remuneration possibilities for AC and SO council and excom members?" I'm sure most people would be against this (I certainly am), but it would give people an opportunity to explain why and what their take on being involved in the ICANN process is. Just an idea... Stéphane Le 02/09/09 00:21, « Avri Doria » <avri@acm.org> a écrit :
Hi,
while not the same words, pretty much what i said. but i promised to report it in a neutral manner.
GAC is being rather insistent. they say it covers all the topics they think are interesting.
the pretty much refused (not in so few words) to hold the meeting on a Monday unless they felt the topic was one of interest to them.
i figured the GNSO was fine with not having the meeting at all and said so. but also said that the GNSO was not proposing that the meeting be cancelled.
a.
On 2 Sep 2009, at 00:14, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Should be an interesting and diverse debate but it will come down to one side's opinions versus the other's. Isn't that basically where we started in the New gTLD PDP process?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 6:04 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Status/report from ACSO meeting
Hi,
Just got out of a ACSO meeting where the topic of the meeting for Seoul was discussed.
The GAC has suggested that the Seoul ACSO meeting focus on a topic from their letter to the Board Chair of 18 Aug 09. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-dengate-thrush -18aug09-en.pdf
Specially based on the following sentence:
"The GAC remains concerned that the threshold question has not been answered whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the potential harms."
So the topic would be:
Whether the introduction of new gTLDs provides potential benefits to consumers that will not be outweighed by the potential harms
We have all been asked to get feedback from the various SOs and ACs before next week.
I have also reported this under the status section of the Agenda for this week.
a.
Hi, I did not write that carefully enough. They did not say do ours or else. Or any version of that. What they said was closer to: that for it to be worth a Monday slot to them, it had to be a topic that was on their plate for this meeting. So either Fast Track issues or new gTLD issues. If we wanted to do something else then schedule for Thursday when they have already finished the bulk of the work that they need to do. Similar to Kristina, they did not feel that the topic last time, while perhaps interesting in itself, contributed to the work they had to get done. I think the issues is more one of focus. Note, I had intended my message as an offlist message to Chuck. I had not planned to give my view in the discussion - but then I sent it to the wrong address. Had I been writing it to the list, I would have been more careful to try and make sure I did not put in the wrong nuance about the GAC position. Fortunately I do not think I embarrassed myself as badly as we sometime do when we send a message to the wrong address. Hopefully the GAC will forgive me for the inappropriate implications I enabled. a. On 2 Sep 2009, at 11:49, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Plus I have to say I find the GAC's attitude surprising ("either run our topic or we're not coming!"). I felt at the previous two ACSO sessions they were very supportive of the whole concept and very open about it. Any idea why the apparent change of attitude?
A very useful clarification. Thank you Avri. Stéphane Le 02/09/09 13:22, « Avri Doria » <avri@acm.org> a écrit :
Hi,
I did not write that carefully enough.
They did not say do ours or else. Or any version of that.
What they said was closer to: that for it to be worth a Monday slot to them, it had to be a topic that was on their plate for this meeting. So either Fast Track issues or new gTLD issues.
If we wanted to do something else then schedule for Thursday when they have already finished the bulk of the work that they need to do.
Similar to Kristina, they did not feel that the topic last time, while perhaps interesting in itself, contributed to the work they had to get done. I think the issues is more one of focus.
Note, I had intended my message as an offlist message to Chuck. I had not planned to give my view in the discussion - but then I sent it to the wrong address. Had I been writing it to the list, I would have been more careful to try and make sure I did not put in the wrong nuance about the GAC position. Fortunately I do not think I embarrassed myself as badly as we sometime do when we send a message to the wrong address.
Hopefully the GAC will forgive me for the inappropriate implications I enabled.
a.
On 2 Sep 2009, at 11:49, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Plus I have to say I find the GAC's attitude surprising ("either run our topic or we're not coming!"). I felt at the previous two ACSO sessions they were very supportive of the whole concept and very open about it. Any idea why the apparent change of attitude?
participants (6)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Olga Cavalli -
Rosette, Kristina -
Stéphane Van Gelder