RE: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting
As you know, Jeff, I specifically focused on the individual comments. I did not raise *at all* the private sector comments. Call participants reacted to those individual comments by either stating something to the effect of "oh, it's just the same persons commenting over and over again" and "they don't really get how the AGP has all these legitimate uses that the registrars [included in their PowerPoint]". That dismissive attitude was and is the basis for my comment. -----Original Message----- From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 10:19 AM To: Rosette, Kristina; Avri Doria; gnso-dt-wg@icann.org Cc: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting It is no surprise you believe the comments were not given the consideration warranted since (i) you wrote some of them (or they were copies of what you wrote) and (ii) the motion does not reflect those comments. Let me state for the record, I do believe the comments were given due consideration not just yesterday, but in the months of this flawed process. Even before the motion was crafted, it was discussed whether he AGP should be eliminated. Registries and Registrars believed it should not and provided evidence as to the necessity of the AGP. This was discussed also in Dehli over and for the past year before that (even during the informational gathering stage). The comments asking for elimination of the AGP from you, INTA (which you wrote), the large companies (who are all members of INTA), just reiterate subjects already discussed. And yes, this was raised by certain members of the GA, but again, this was discussed. Sorry to be so blunt, but I do not want the Council or to the GA, to be left with what I personally believe is the wrong impression. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & Business Development NeuStar, Inc. e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:58 AM To: Avri Doria; gnso-dt-wg@icann.org Cc: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting We didn't talk about providing a summary, but here's my take on it: It is accurate to say that there was support for not changing the motion. (I did not agree on several points, but ultimately decided that it was necessary to agree to disagree given my singular status on these points.) Only comments raised by participants were discussed. There was no systematic effort to track the public comment summary provided by staff. Comments that Council should define or delineate "exceptional circumstances" and "regularly" or should instruct Staff to do so in implementation were not acted upon on the ground that doing so would cause delay in action on motion and that review period could be relied upon to disclose abuses. Comments that "exceptional circumstances" information should be publicly disclosed were not acted upon on the ground that that information is the business of only the relevant registry, registrar, and ICANN staff, and that review period can be relied upon to disclose abuses. Comments that a timeframe for implementation should be added were not acted upon on the ground that implementation is beyond scope. There was general agreement that implementation should occur in a reasonable time. Extensive discussion about whether Council should include in motion provision regarding budget mechanism. General agreement that should be included in motion, but follow on motion may be appropriate. As best I could determine, I was the only who supported budget mechanism in addition to policy. Out of concern that the team would later be accused of ignoring public comment, I started a discussion on the fact that a number of comments had called for elimination of the AGP or indicated that elimination was the preferred mechanism. My personal view is that these comments were not given the consideration they warrant. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:01 AM To: gnso-dt-wg@icann.org Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting Hi, I am wondering whether the DT is going to go through all the comments and include an initial response to them in their report to the council or whether the council itself will approach then raw at the council meeting. I am fine either way, though I think having the DT do the first pass a responding to all comments will facilitate the work and give a better perspective. I want to make sure that in our deliberations we cover all of the possibilities and issues mentioned in the public comments, including those that are not direct comments on the motion before the council or the proposals before the Registry Services Evaluation Process. I.e. we should discuss not only modification to the AGP but must make sure we cover in our discussions the proposal to eliminate the AGP. We also need to make sure we understand the implications of the current motion on the proposal before the Registry Services Evaluation Process and the Board resolution (2008.01.04) to investigate using ICANN's budgetary process to control DT through the introduction of fees . thanks a.
The purpose of the public comment period, and the updated Constituency statements, was to see if any new issues would be raised wrt to the specific motion proposed by the design team. The design team met yesterday and discussed the nuances that were raised in those comments and statements. However there was not consensus, nor even support from more than one participant, to change the motion as drafted. There was consensus that to change the motion would likely introduce more delay. Furthermore, there was not consensus to add suggestions from IP interests because of the consensus belief that the current motion, if implemented and coupled with the general non-refundability of the 'ICANN fee' proposed by the Board, would virtually eliminate commercial domain tasting. As for the proposals to eliminate the AGP altogether, that is an old debate, resolved in favor of the instant motion -- which is a compromise by all stakeholders, that I feel should be unanimously supported by Council. To that end, I formally make a motion to adopt the draft motion as set forth for public comment, by vote in our April 17 meeting. Thanks, Mike Rodenbaugh -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 7:28 AM To: Neuman, Jeff; Avri Doria; gnso-dt-wg@icann.org Cc: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting As you know, Jeff, I specifically focused on the individual comments. I did not raise *at all* the private sector comments. Call participants reacted to those individual comments by either stating something to the effect of "oh, it's just the same persons commenting over and over again" and "they don't really get how the AGP has all these legitimate uses that the registrars [included in their PowerPoint]". That dismissive attitude was and is the basis for my comment. -----Original Message----- From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 10:19 AM To: Rosette, Kristina; Avri Doria; gnso-dt-wg@icann.org Cc: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting It is no surprise you believe the comments were not given the consideration warranted since (i) you wrote some of them (or they were copies of what you wrote) and (ii) the motion does not reflect those comments. Let me state for the record, I do believe the comments were given due consideration not just yesterday, but in the months of this flawed process. Even before the motion was crafted, it was discussed whether he AGP should be eliminated. Registries and Registrars believed it should not and provided evidence as to the necessity of the AGP. This was discussed also in Dehli over and for the past year before that (even during the informational gathering stage). The comments asking for elimination of the AGP from you, INTA (which you wrote), the large companies (who are all members of INTA), just reiterate subjects already discussed. And yes, this was raised by certain members of the GA, but again, this was discussed. Sorry to be so blunt, but I do not want the Council or to the GA, to be left with what I personally believe is the wrong impression. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & Business Development NeuStar, Inc. e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:58 AM To: Avri Doria; gnso-dt-wg@icann.org Cc: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting We didn't talk about providing a summary, but here's my take on it: It is accurate to say that there was support for not changing the motion. (I did not agree on several points, but ultimately decided that it was necessary to agree to disagree given my singular status on these points.) Only comments raised by participants were discussed. There was no systematic effort to track the public comment summary provided by staff. Comments that Council should define or delineate "exceptional circumstances" and "regularly" or should instruct Staff to do so in implementation were not acted upon on the ground that doing so would cause delay in action on motion and that review period could be relied upon to disclose abuses. Comments that "exceptional circumstances" information should be publicly disclosed were not acted upon on the ground that that information is the business of only the relevant registry, registrar, and ICANN staff, and that review period can be relied upon to disclose abuses. Comments that a timeframe for implementation should be added were not acted upon on the ground that implementation is beyond scope. There was general agreement that implementation should occur in a reasonable time. Extensive discussion about whether Council should include in motion provision regarding budget mechanism. General agreement that should be included in motion, but follow on motion may be appropriate. As best I could determine, I was the only who supported budget mechanism in addition to policy. Out of concern that the team would later be accused of ignoring public comment, I started a discussion on the fact that a number of comments had called for elimination of the AGP or indicated that elimination was the preferred mechanism. My personal view is that these comments were not given the consideration they warrant. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:01 AM To: gnso-dt-wg@icann.org Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting Hi, I am wondering whether the DT is going to go through all the comments and include an initial response to them in their report to the council or whether the council itself will approach then raw at the council meeting. I am fine either way, though I think having the DT do the first pass a responding to all comments will facilitate the work and give a better perspective. I want to make sure that in our deliberations we cover all of the possibilities and issues mentioned in the public comments, including those that are not direct comments on the motion before the council or the proposals before the Registry Services Evaluation Process. I.e. we should discuss not only modification to the AGP but must make sure we cover in our discussions the proposal to eliminate the AGP. We also need to make sure we understand the implications of the current motion on the proposal before the Registry Services Evaluation Process and the Board resolution (2008.01.04) to investigate using ICANN's budgetary process to control DT through the introduction of fees . thanks a.
Although we did not go through the comments one-by-one, we did go through the categories of replies that the summary identified. If the alternative to the group providing a summary of why we decided to not act on these comments is that the entire council does it, then I think that we need to produce such a summary. Regarding Mike statement below, I do not think that we had consensus that to be successful the current motion had to be coupled with the non-refundability of the ICANN fee. In fact, several of us felt that the ICANN fee change should be reconsidered for registries that implement the substance of the motion. Avri, do you really believe that we must respond to the comments one-by-one, or is it sufficient to address the issues that the staff summary identifies? Alan At 02/04/2008 10:53 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
The purpose of the public comment period, and the updated Constituency statements, was to see if any new issues would be raised wrt to the specific motion proposed by the design team. The design team met yesterday and discussed the nuances that were raised in those comments and statements. However there was not consensus, nor even support from more than one participant, to change the motion as drafted.
There was consensus that to change the motion would likely introduce more delay. Furthermore, there was not consensus to add suggestions from IP interests because of the consensus belief that the current motion, if implemented and coupled with the general non-refundability of the 'ICANN fee' proposed by the Board, would virtually eliminate commercial domain tasting.
As for the proposals to eliminate the AGP altogether, that is an old debate, resolved in favor of the instant motion -- which is a compromise by all stakeholders, that I feel should be unanimously supported by Council. To that end, I formally make a motion to adopt the draft motion as set forth for public comment, by vote in our April 17 meeting.
Thanks, Mike Rodenbaugh
-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 7:28 AM To: Neuman, Jeff; Avri Doria; gnso-dt-wg@icann.org Cc: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting
As you know, Jeff, I specifically focused on the individual comments. I did not raise *at all* the private sector comments. Call participants reacted to those individual comments by either stating something to the effect of "oh, it's just the same persons commenting over and over again" and "they don't really get how the AGP has all these legitimate uses that the registrars [included in their PowerPoint]". That dismissive attitude was and is the basis for my comment.
-----Original Message----- From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 10:19 AM To: Rosette, Kristina; Avri Doria; gnso-dt-wg@icann.org Cc: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting
It is no surprise you believe the comments were not given the consideration warranted since (i) you wrote some of them (or they were copies of what you wrote) and (ii) the motion does not reflect those comments.
Let me state for the record, I do believe the comments were given due consideration not just yesterday, but in the months of this flawed process.
Even before the motion was crafted, it was discussed whether he AGP should be eliminated. Registries and Registrars believed it should not and provided evidence as to the necessity of the AGP. This was discussed also in Dehli over and for the past year before that (even during the informational gathering stage). The comments asking for elimination of the AGP from you, INTA (which you wrote), the large companies (who are all members of INTA), just reiterate subjects already discussed. And yes, this was raised by certain members of the GA, but again, this was discussed.
Sorry to be so blunt, but I do not want the Council or to the GA, to be left with what I personally believe is the wrong impression.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services &
Business Development
NeuStar, Inc. e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us
-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:58 AM To: Avri Doria; gnso-dt-wg@icann.org Cc: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting
We didn't talk about providing a summary, but here's my take on it:
It is accurate to say that there was support for not changing the motion. (I did not agree on several points, but ultimately decided that it was necessary to agree to disagree given my singular status on these points.)
Only comments raised by participants were discussed. There was no systematic effort to track the public comment summary provided by staff.
Comments that Council should define or delineate "exceptional circumstances" and "regularly" or should instruct Staff to do so in implementation were not acted upon on the ground that doing so would cause delay in action on motion and that review period could be relied upon to disclose abuses.
Comments that "exceptional circumstances" information should be publicly disclosed were not acted upon on the ground that that information is the business of only the relevant registry, registrar, and ICANN staff, and that review period can be relied upon to disclose abuses.
Comments that a timeframe for implementation should be added were not acted upon on the ground that implementation is beyond scope. There was general agreement that implementation should occur in a reasonable time.
Extensive discussion about whether Council should include in motion provision regarding budget mechanism. General agreement that should be included in motion, but follow on motion may be appropriate. As best I could determine, I was the only who supported budget mechanism in addition to policy.
Out of concern that the team would later be accused of ignoring public comment, I started a discussion on the fact that a number of comments had called for elimination of the AGP or indicated that elimination was the preferred mechanism. My personal view is that these comments were not given the consideration they warrant.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:01 AM To: gnso-dt-wg@icann.org Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting
Hi,
I am wondering whether the DT is going to go through all the comments and include an initial response to them in their report to the council or whether the council itself will approach then raw at the council meeting. I am fine either way, though I think having the DT do the first pass a responding to all comments will facilitate the work and give a better perspective.
I want to make sure that in our deliberations we cover all of the possibilities and issues mentioned in the public comments, including those that are not direct comments on the motion before the council or the proposals before the Registry Services Evaluation Process. I.e. we should discuss not only modification to the AGP but must make sure we cover in our discussions the proposal to eliminate the AGP. We also need to make sure we understand the implications of the current motion on the proposal before the Registry Services Evaluation Process and the Board resolution (2008.01.04) to investigate using ICANN's budgetary process to control DT through the introduction of fees .
thanks
a.
On 2 Apr 2008, at 19:02, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Avri, do you really believe that we must respond to the comments one- by-one, or is it sufficient to address the issues that the staff summary identifies?
I believe we need to take the ideas and suggestions into account and I believe need to respond to those in the report in that the writer of the report can show that they these ideas were discussed. i do not believe we need to respond to each and every email. So yes, as long as the staff summary has picked up all of the ideas, then responding to the staff summary should be sufficient. a.
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Rosette, Kristina