Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
Dear DG Members, Please note that the first meeting of this Drafting Group (DG) has been scheduled for Monday 11 August at 1400 UTC. We apologize in advance if you are unable to attend this call - note that all future meetings of the DG will be scheduled after the DG has had a chance to discuss the day of the week, time, and regularity of future DG calls. This first meeting will be of an introductory nature. The proposed agenda is: * Roll Call / Statements of Interest * Applicability of ICANN principles of transparency and openness * Items for initial review - GNSO Resolution forming this group, GNSO Working Group Guidelines, GNSO Policy Development Process (to serve as a reference point for the DG) * Discussion of Work Plan Review of Interim Chair's Draft Work Plan and discussion of alternatives and tools for completing work * Election of DG Leaders The DG may elect to have co-chairs or vice-chairs. Once selected, the DG Chair(s) will need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council. * Confirmation of next meeting In regards to the bullet for the Election of DG Leaders, if you would like to put forth your name for consideration for a DG leadership role in advance of the discussion during the call, please do so by responding to the group email list. The GNSO Secretariat has already send out a calendar invitation/notice, which contains details for dialing in to the call and joining the Adobe Connect virtual meeting room. Please let the Secretariat know (gnso-secs@icann.org) if you are unable to make the call. I look forward to speaking to you all in a week. Best, Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649
Dear Discussion Group Members: Welcome to the planning group for the next stage in the development of new top-level domains. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this important work. My Introduction. I expect that I have met most of you already, but my name is Bret Fausett, and I am the General Counsel of Uniregistry, Corp., an applicant for a number of new gTLDs and the current registry operator for a smaller number of new gTLDs. I also am a member of the GNSO Council, appointed from the Registry Stakeholder Group. As you may know, at its regularly scheduled meeting at ICANN50 in London, the GNSO created this special discussion group to start the policy development work for subsequent rounds of new gTLD applications. A link to the GNSO's resolution is below: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20140625-2 As it does with all working groups, the GNSO appointed an Interim Chair, from the Council, to organize the group and get it started. I was appointed to fill that role. What is a “Discussion Group”? You will note that this group is called a "discussion group." This is different from other working groups with which you may been involved previously. To the best of my knowledge, this mechanism has not been used before, so we will be creating this together. Let me provide some background on why the GNSO selected this mechanism, which also will provide some guidance on our way forward. Typically, new policy development processes start with a request by the GNSO Council for an issue report from ICANN staff on a reasonably defined policy issue. Following the preparation of the staff issue report, the GNSO can vote to create a policy development process. When it does, the Council creates a working group to develop policy recommendations that the Council can evaluate and adopt. Adopted policy recommendations ultimately work their way to the broader ICANN community and then to the ICANN Board. Here, with regard to the subject of new top-level domains, the GNSO thought that the issues we might possibly examine for future rounds of new gTLDs were, at present, too numerous and too undefined to move directly to issue reports. As a consequence, this "discussion group" was created to specify the issues that we might choose to examine for future policy development efforts. A Proposed Way Forward. Our job is simply to identify, and ultimately categorize, the issues that future policy development processes might consider. We want to divide the issues into logically connected pieces that staff can turn into issue reports for the Council, and that the Council, in turn, can assign to policy development working groups. I think this means that every issue, identified by any member of the discussion group or a stakeholder group it represents, is included on a list of possible issues for future consideration. For example, if you believe that new gTLDs launching on random days of the week confuses consumers, you could suggest that we add "Should new gTLDs launch to the public on a uniform day of the week?" to the list of issues for future consideration. Such an issue might be followed by its rationale, “Rationale: Consumers may be confused as to when they are able to register names if some gTLDs launch on Monday, some on Tuesday, etc.” Ideally, the proponent of an issue for consideration would draft the statement of the issue and its corresponding rationale using neutral words that did not prejudge the policy outcome. At this issue identification stage, you shouldn't need to convince anyone of the value of a uniform launch day, only that this is a real issue of concern to you. Ideally, members of the discussion group with similar issues would come together to create a single agreed issue statement for their common issue. After we have a master list of issues that we have created on this list and/or in a wiki or other workspace format, I propose we categorize them into logical sets. I don’t have a clear idea of what that categorization might look like, but I expect the organization will make itself more clear to us as we create the issues. Issue identification and categorization will be the bulk of our work. Because we are identifying issues, not solving hard policy problems, I expect that most of our work will be collegial, non-contentious and can be completed before the end of 2014. I expect we won’t always agree on what the policy outcomes should be, but we will have those discussions when the PDPs start in a few months. * * * * * I look forward to our first meeting next week, and I hope that we will be have most of our discussions, and do most of our work, on this mailing list and using the available wiki/workspace tools that ICANN makes available to us. — Bret -- Bret Fausett, Esq. • General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 • Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536 310-496-5755 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • bret@uniregistry.link — — — — —
Forwarded again to the list because there have been a number of newcomers who were not subscribed at the time of this message. Apologies to the rest of the members for the double posting. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/> From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: mardi 5 août 2014 03:24 To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Introduction and Proposed Work Plan Dear Discussion Group Members: Welcome to the planning group for the next stage in the development of new top-level domains. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this important work. My Introduction. I expect that I have met most of you already, but my name is Bret Fausett, and I am the General Counsel of Uniregistry, Corp., an applicant for a number of new gTLDs and the current registry operator for a smaller number of new gTLDs. I also am a member of the GNSO Council, appointed from the Registry Stakeholder Group. As you may know, at its regularly scheduled meeting at ICANN50 in London, the GNSO created this special discussion group to start the policy development work for subsequent rounds of new gTLD applications. A link to the GNSO's resolution is below: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20140625-2 As it does with all working groups, the GNSO appointed an Interim Chair, from the Council, to organize the group and get it started. I was appointed to fill that role. What is a "Discussion Group"? You will note that this group is called a "discussion group." This is different from other working groups with which you may been involved previously. To the best of my knowledge, this mechanism has not been used before, so we will be creating this together. Let me provide some background on why the GNSO selected this mechanism, which also will provide some guidance on our way forward. Typically, new policy development processes start with a request by the GNSO Council for an issue report from ICANN staff on a reasonably defined policy issue. Following the preparation of the staff issue report, the GNSO can vote to create a policy development process. When it does, the Council creates a working group to develop policy recommendations that the Council can evaluate and adopt. Adopted policy recommendations ultimately work their way to the broader ICANN community and then to the ICANN Board. Here, with regard to the subject of new top-level domains, the GNSO thought that the issues we might possibly examine for future rounds of new gTLDs were, at present, too numerous and too undefined to move directly to issue reports. As a consequence, this "discussion group" was created to specify the issues that we might choose to examine for future policy development efforts. A Proposed Way Forward. Our job is simply to identify, and ultimately categorize, the issues that future policy development processes might consider. We want to divide the issues into logically connected pieces that staff can turn into issue reports for the Council, and that the Council, in turn, can assign to policy development working groups. I think this means that every issue, identified by any member of the discussion group or a stakeholder group it represents, is included on a list of possible issues for future consideration. For example, if you believe that new gTLDs launching on random days of the week confuses consumers, you could suggest that we add "Should new gTLDs launch to the public on a uniform day of the week?" to the list of issues for future consideration. Such an issue might be followed by its rationale, "Rationale: Consumers may be confused as to when they are able to register names if some gTLDs launch on Monday, some on Tuesday, etc." Ideally, the proponent of an issue for consideration would draft the statement of the issue and its corresponding rationale using neutral words that did not prejudge the policy outcome. At this issue identification stage, you shouldn't need to convince anyone of the value of a uniform launch day, only that this is a real issue of concern to you. Ideally, members of the discussion group with similar issues would come together to create a single agreed issue statement for their common issue. After we have a master list of issues that we have created on this list and/or in a wiki or other workspace format, I propose we categorize them into logical sets. I don't have a clear idea of what that categorization might look like, but I expect the organization will make itself more clear to us as we create the issues. Issue identification and categorization will be the bulk of our work. Because we are identifying issues, not solving hard policy problems, I expect that most of our work will be collegial, non-contentious and can be completed before the end of 2014. I expect we won't always agree on what the policy outcomes should be, but we will have those discussions when the PDPs start in a few months. * * * * * I look forward to our first meeting next week, and I hope that we will be have most of our discussions, and do most of our work, on this mailing list and using the available wiki/workspace tools that ICANN makes available to us. - Bret -- Bret Fausett, Esq. * General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 * Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536 310-496-5755 (T) * 310-985-1351 (M) * bret@uniregistry.link<mailto:bret@uniregistry.link> - - - - -
Bret Thanks for the introduction and explanation. It's very helpful. I might miss the first call next week, as I'm on holiday. In any case I look forward to working with you all on this group over the next few months. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 2:24 AM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Introduction and Proposed Work Plan Dear Discussion Group Members: Welcome to the planning group for the next stage in the development of new top-level domains. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this important work. My Introduction. I expect that I have met most of you already, but my name is Bret Fausett, and I am the General Counsel of Uniregistry, Corp., an applicant for a number of new gTLDs and the current registry operator for a smaller number of new gTLDs. I also am a member of the GNSO Council, appointed from the Registry Stakeholder Group. As you may know, at its regularly scheduled meeting at ICANN50 in London, the GNSO created this special discussion group to start the policy development work for subsequent rounds of new gTLD applications. A link to the GNSO's resolution is below: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20140625-2 As it does with all working groups, the GNSO appointed an Interim Chair, from the Council, to organize the group and get it started. I was appointed to fill that role. What is a "Discussion Group"? You will note that this group is called a "discussion group." This is different from other working groups with which you may been involved previously. To the best of my knowledge, this mechanism has not been used before, so we will be creating this together. Let me provide some background on why the GNSO selected this mechanism, which also will provide some guidance on our way forward. Typically, new policy development processes start with a request by the GNSO Council for an issue report from ICANN staff on a reasonably defined policy issue. Following the preparation of the staff issue report, the GNSO can vote to create a policy development process. When it does, the Council creates a working group to develop policy recommendations that the Council can evaluate and adopt. Adopted policy recommendations ultimately work their way to the broader ICANN community and then to the ICANN Board. Here, with regard to the subject of new top-level domains, the GNSO thought that the issues we might possibly examine for future rounds of new gTLDs were, at present, too numerous and too undefined to move directly to issue reports. As a consequence, this "discussion group" was created to specify the issues that we might choose to examine for future policy development efforts. A Proposed Way Forward. Our job is simply to identify, and ultimately categorize, the issues that future policy development processes might consider. We want to divide the issues into logically connected pieces that staff can turn into issue reports for the Council, and that the Council, in turn, can assign to policy development working groups. I think this means that every issue, identified by any member of the discussion group or a stakeholder group it represents, is included on a list of possible issues for future consideration. For example, if you believe that new gTLDs launching on random days of the week confuses consumers, you could suggest that we add "Should new gTLDs launch to the public on a uniform day of the week?" to the list of issues for future consideration. Such an issue might be followed by its rationale, "Rationale: Consumers may be confused as to when they are able to register names if some gTLDs launch on Monday, some on Tuesday, etc." Ideally, the proponent of an issue for consideration would draft the statement of the issue and its corresponding rationale using neutral words that did not prejudge the policy outcome. At this issue identification stage, you shouldn't need to convince anyone of the value of a uniform launch day, only that this is a real issue of concern to you. Ideally, members of the discussion group with similar issues would come together to create a single agreed issue statement for their common issue. After we have a master list of issues that we have created on this list and/or in a wiki or other workspace format, I propose we categorize them into logical sets. I don't have a clear idea of what that categorization might look like, but I expect the organization will make itself more clear to us as we create the issues. Issue identification and categorization will be the bulk of our work. Because we are identifying issues, not solving hard policy problems, I expect that most of our work will be collegial, non-contentious and can be completed before the end of 2014. I expect we won't always agree on what the policy outcomes should be, but we will have those discussions when the PDPs start in a few months. * * * * * I look forward to our first meeting next week, and I hope that we will be have most of our discussions, and do most of our work, on this mailing list and using the available wiki/workspace tools that ICANN makes available to us. - Bret -- Bret Fausett, Esq. * General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 * Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536 310-496-5755 (T) * 310-985-1351 (M) * bret@uniregistry.link<mailto:bret@uniregistry.link> - - - - -
Resend for the benefit of the new members added after this notice was sent out. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/> From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: mardi 5 août 2014 01:48 To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds Dear DG Members, Please note that the first meeting of this Drafting Group (DG) has been scheduled for Monday 11 August at 1400 UTC. We apologize in advance if you are unable to attend this call - note that all future meetings of the DG will be scheduled after the DG has had a chance to discuss the day of the week, time, and regularity of future DG calls. This first meeting will be of an introductory nature. The proposed agenda is: * Roll Call / Statements of Interest * Applicability of ICANN principles of transparency and openness * Items for initial review - GNSO Resolution forming this group, GNSO Working Group Guidelines, GNSO Policy Development Process (to serve as a reference point for the DG) * Discussion of Work Plan - Review of Interim Chair's Draft Work Plan and discussion of alternatives and tools for completing work * Election of DG Leaders - The DG may elect to have co-chairs or vice-chairs. Once selected, the DG Chair(s) will need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council. * Confirmation of next meeting In regards to the bullet for the Election of DG Leaders, if you would like to put forth your name for consideration for a DG leadership role in advance of the discussion during the call, please do so by responding to the group email list. The GNSO Secretariat has already send out a calendar invitation/notice, which contains details for dialing in to the call and joining the Adobe Connect virtual meeting room. Please let the Secretariat know (gnso-secs@icann.org) if you are unable to make the call. I look forward to speaking to you all in a week. Best, Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649
Hello All, A couple of links to some resources. Community Wiki - https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/Discussion+Group+%28DG%29+-+New+g TLD+Subsequent+Rounds+Home. I added a page that provides some limited details for the next call. GNSO Project Page - http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/non-pdp-new-gtld This DG is the first time that we are implementing the concept of member and observer. As a reminder of the differences, here is the text from the Call for Volunteers, with an additional note I added for clarity: Please note that as a Discussion Group member you are expected to attend conference calls and to actively participate in online discussions. If you are concerned about the amount of time or input that you would be able to provide to the group, but would like to remain informed of the group's activities, it is encouraged that you participate as an observer. Participating as an observer will allow you to follow the group's work on the mailing list (Note: MP3 recordings of calls and chat transcripts will be made available on the Community Wiki). To be able to actively participate in conference calls and online discussions, you would need to change your status from observer to member, which can be accomplished by simply emailing your request to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso-secs@icann.org). The GNSO Secretariat will endeavor to ensure your status is changed in time for the group's next meeting. Best, Steve From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2014 at 2:02 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] FW: Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds Resend for the benefit of the new members added after this notice was sent out. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/> From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: mardi 5 août 2014 01:48 To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds Dear DG Members, Please note that the first meeting of this Drafting Group (DG) has been scheduled for Monday 11 August at 1400 UTC. We apologize in advance if you are unable to attend this call - note that all future meetings of the DG will be scheduled after the DG has had a chance to discuss the day of the week, time, and regularity of future DG calls. This first meeting will be of an introductory nature. The proposed agenda is: * Roll Call / Statements of Interest * Applicability of ICANN principles of transparency and openness * Items for initial review - GNSO Resolution forming this group, GNSO Working Group Guidelines, GNSO Policy Development Process (to serve as a reference point for the DG) * Discussion of Work Plan Review of Interim Chair's Draft Work Plan and discussion of alternatives and tools for completing work * Election of DG Leaders The DG may elect to have co-chairs or vice-chairs. Once selected, the DG Chair(s) will need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council. * Confirmation of next meeting In regards to the bullet for the Election of DG Leaders, if you would like to put forth your name for consideration for a DG leadership role in advance of the discussion during the call, please do so by responding to the group email list. The GNSO Secretariat has already send out a calendar invitation/notice, which contains details for dialing in to the call and joining the Adobe Connect virtual meeting room. Please let the Secretariat know (gnso-secs@icann.org) if you are unable to make the call. I look forward to speaking to you all in a week. Best, Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649
be of an introductory nature. The proposed agenda is:
Roll Call / Statements of Interest
Suggestion: only reading SoI for people that do not have GNSO SOIs (or have updates to), to shorten up this part.
Applicability of ICANN principles of transparency and openness Items for initial review - GNSO Resolution forming this group, GNSO Working Group Guidelines, GNSO Policy Development Process (to serve as a reference point for the DG) Discussion of Work Plan – Review of Interim Chair's Draft Work Plan and discussion of alternatives and tools for completing work Election of DG Leaders – The DG may elect to have co-chairs or vice-chairs. Once selected, the DG Chair(s) will need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council.
May I suggest that no attempt to see vice-chairs as representation of that constituency in the group ? It's so much simpler to have 2 (either chair/vice-chair, co-chair/co-chair, chair/alternate chair) leaders instead of a complex structure... since *-chairs only have coordination but no definition role, it's of no use to see too much into the roles. Rubens
Everyone should have an SOI If they don't have one setting one up is not hard .. I'd also respectfully suggest that any election / choice of DG leaders be deferred I suspect that the group's make up will change between now and September as people come back from holidays etc and become aware of the group's existence Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:13 AM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds be of an introductory nature. The proposed agenda is: * Roll Call / Statements of Interest Suggestion: only reading SoI for people that do not have GNSO SOIs (or have updates to), to shorten up this part. * Applicability of ICANN principles of transparency and openness * Items for initial review - GNSO Resolution forming this group, GNSO Working Group Guidelines, GNSO Policy Development Process (to serve as a reference point for the DG) * Discussion of Work Plan - Review of Interim Chair's Draft Work Plan and discussion of alternatives and tools for completing work * Election of DG Leaders - The DG may elect to have co-chairs or vice-chairs. Once selected, the DG Chair(s) will need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council. May I suggest that no attempt to see vice-chairs as representation of that constituency in the group ? It's so much simpler to have 2 (either chair/vice-chair, co-chair/co-chair, chair/alternate chair) leaders instead of a complex structure... since *-chairs only have coordination but no definition role, it's of no use to see too much into the roles. Rubens
Michele's suggestion makes sense. Unless there's a feeling the group cannot function for a month absent leadership, which I would find surprising. Best. Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/> ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 6 August 2014 14:01, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
Everyone should have an SOI
If they don't have one setting one up is not hard
..
I'd also respectfully suggest that any election / choice of DG leaders be deferred
I suspect that the group's make up will change between now and September as people come back from holidays etc and become aware of the group's existence
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From:* gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rubens Kuhl *Sent:* Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:13 AM *To:* gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
be of an introductory nature. The proposed agenda is:
- Roll Call / Statements of Interest
Suggestion: only reading SoI for people that do not have GNSO SOIs (or have updates to), to shorten up this part.
- Applicability of ICANN principles of transparency and openness - Items for initial review - GNSO Resolution forming this group, GNSO Working Group Guidelines, GNSO Policy Development Process (to serve as a reference point for the DG) - Discussion of Work Plan - Review of Interim Chair's Draft Work Plan and discussion of alternatives and tools for completing work - Election of DG Leaders - The DG may elect to have co-chairs or vice-chairs. Once selected, the DG Chair(s) will need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council.
May I suggest that no attempt to see vice-chairs as representation of that constituency in the group ? It's so much simpler to have 2 (either chair/vice-chair, co-chair/co-chair, chair/alternate chair) leaders instead of a complex structure... since *-chairs only have coordination but no definition role, it's of no use to see too much into the roles.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Stephane We have an interim chair and if people had an overwhelming need for other interim leaders then why not select one or two "interim" types for now .. And since you're being nice to me today (which is of course rare) I'll volunteer you :) Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: stephvg@gmail.com [mailto:stephvg@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 1:56 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: Rubens Kuhl; gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds Michele's suggestion makes sense. Unless there's a feeling the group cannot function for a month absent leadership, which I would find surprising. Best. Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com<http://www.stephanevangelder.com/> ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 6 August 2014 14:01, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote: Everyone should have an SOI If they don't have one setting one up is not hard .. I'd also respectfully suggest that any election / choice of DG leaders be deferred I suspect that the group's make up will change between now and September as people come back from holidays etc and become aware of the group's existence Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%C2%A0%209183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:13 AM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds be of an introductory nature. The proposed agenda is: * Roll Call / Statements of Interest Suggestion: only reading SoI for people that do not have GNSO SOIs (or have updates to), to shorten up this part. * Applicability of ICANN principles of transparency and openness * Items for initial review - GNSO Resolution forming this group, GNSO Working Group Guidelines, GNSO Policy Development Process (to serve as a reference point for the DG) * Discussion of Work Plan - Review of Interim Chair's Draft Work Plan and discussion of alternatives and tools for completing work * Election of DG Leaders - The DG may elect to have co-chairs or vice-chairs. Once selected, the DG Chair(s) will need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council. May I suggest that no attempt to see vice-chairs as representation of that constituency in the group ? It's so much simpler to have 2 (either chair/vice-chair, co-chair/co-chair, chair/alternate chair) leaders instead of a complex structure... since *-chairs only have coordination but no definition role, it's of no use to see too much into the roles. Rubens _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Thanks Michele, I'll stop being nice to you now then ;) Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/> ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 6 August 2014 14:57, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
Stephane
We have an interim chair and if people had an overwhelming need for other interim leaders then why not select one or two "interim" types for now ..
And since you're being nice to me today (which is of course rare) I'll volunteer you :)
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From:* stephvg@gmail.com [mailto:stephvg@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephane Van Gelder *Sent:* Wednesday, August 06, 2014 1:56 PM *To:* Michele Neylon - Blacknight *Cc:* Rubens Kuhl; gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
Michele's suggestion makes sense. Unless there's a feeling the group cannot function for a month absent leadership, which I would find surprising.
Best.
Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD
"Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice"
T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.Milathan.com <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/>
---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com
On 6 August 2014 14:01, Michele Neylon - Blacknight < michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
Everyone should have an SOI
If they don't have one setting one up is not hard
..
I'd also respectfully suggest that any election / choice of DG leaders be deferred
I suspect that the group's make up will change between now and September as people come back from holidays etc and become aware of the group's existence
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From:* gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rubens Kuhl *Sent:* Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:13 AM *To:* gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
be of an introductory nature. The proposed agenda is:
- Roll Call / Statements of Interest
Suggestion: only reading SoI for people that do not have GNSO SOIs (or have updates to), to shorten up this part.
- Applicability of ICANN principles of transparency and openness - Items for initial review - GNSO Resolution forming this group, GNSO Working Group Guidelines, GNSO Policy Development Process (to serve as a reference point for the DG) - Discussion of Work Plan - Review of Interim Chair's Draft Work Plan and discussion of alternatives and tools for completing work - Election of DG Leaders - The DG may elect to have co-chairs or vice-chairs. Once selected, the DG Chair(s) will need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council.
May I suggest that no attempt to see vice-chairs as representation of that constituency in the group ? It's so much simpler to have 2 (either chair/vice-chair, co-chair/co-chair, chair/alternate chair) leaders instead of a complex structure... since *-chairs only have coordination but no definition role, it's of no use to see too much into the roles.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
I dont understand how the group can function for a month without a chair. Also, I dont think we will fail finding a good chair among the already existing members. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- De : gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Stephane Van Gelder Envoyé : mercredi 6 août 2014 13:56 À : Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc : gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Objet : Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds Michele's suggestion makes sense. Unless there's a feeling the group cannot function for a month absent leadership, which I would find surprising. Best. Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/> www.Milathan.com ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 6 August 2014 14:01, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> wrote: Everyone should have an SOI If they don't have one setting one up is not hard .. I'd also respectfully suggest that any election / choice of DG leaders be deferred I suspect that the group's make up will change between now and September as people come back from holidays etc and become aware of the group's existence Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 <tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%C2%A0%209183072> (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 <tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:13 AM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds be of an introductory nature. The proposed agenda is: * Roll Call / Statements of Interest Suggestion: only reading SoI for people that do not have GNSO SOIs (or have updates to), to shorten up this part. * Applicability of ICANN principles of transparency and openness * Items for initial review - GNSO Resolution forming this group, GNSO Working Group Guidelines, GNSO Policy Development Process (to serve as a reference point for the DG) * Discussion of Work Plan Review of Interim Chair's Draft Work Plan and discussion of alternatives and tools for completing work * Election of DG Leaders The DG may elect to have co-chairs or vice-chairs. Once selected, the DG Chair(s) will need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council. May I suggest that no attempt to see vice-chairs as representation of that constituency in the group ? It's so much simpler to have 2 (either chair/vice-chair, co-chair/co-chair, chair/alternate chair) leaders instead of a complex structure... since *-chairs only have coordination but no definition role, it's of no use to see too much into the roles. Rubens _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg --- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. http://www.avast.com
I second the suggestion of holding off on selection/election until the group fills out Jeff On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight < michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
Everyone should have an SOI
If they don't have one setting one up is not hard
..
I'd also respectfully suggest that any election / choice of DG leaders be deferred
I suspect that the group's make up will change between now and September as people come back from holidays etc and become aware of the group's existence
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From:* gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rubens Kuhl *Sent:* Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:13 AM *To:* gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
be of an introductory nature. The proposed agenda is:
- Roll Call / Statements of Interest
Suggestion: only reading SoI for people that do not have GNSO SOIs (or have updates to), to shorten up this part.
- Applicability of ICANN principles of transparency and openness - Items for initial review - GNSO Resolution forming this group, GNSO Working Group Guidelines, GNSO Policy Development Process (to serve as a reference point for the DG) - Discussion of Work Plan – Review of Interim Chair's Draft Work Plan and discussion of alternatives and tools for completing work - Election of DG Leaders – The DG may elect to have co-chairs or vice-chairs. Once selected, the DG Chair(s) will need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council.
May I suggest that no attempt to see vice-chairs as representation of that constituency in the group ? It's so much simpler to have 2 (either chair/vice-chair, co-chair/co-chair, chair/alternate chair) leaders instead of a complex structure... since *-chairs only have coordination but no definition role, it's of no use to see too much into the roles.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
-- Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Rightside Group, Ltd. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
Dear colleagues, My thought on the election of leadership is more focused on process, i.e., the Chair, V Chairs, or whatever the group decides is best, should be unconflicted. That is to say, they should neither be applicants nor new registries. Within the long list of members, I am sure that we can select those that have no horses in the race, as they say. In this way both the work and the optics will demonstrate transparency and accountability in an appropriate manner. My two cents… RA Ron Andruff ONR Consulting, Inc. From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Eckhaus Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:08 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds I second the suggestion of holding off on selection/election until the group fills out Jeff On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com> > wrote: Everyone should have an SOI If they don't have one setting one up is not hard .. I'd also respectfully suggest that any election / choice of DG leaders be deferred I suspect that the group's make up will change between now and September as people come back from holidays etc and become aware of the group's existence Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 <tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%C2%A0%209183072> 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 <tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:13 AM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds be of an introductory nature. The proposed agenda is: * Roll Call / Statements of Interest Suggestion: only reading SoI for people that do not have GNSO SOIs (or have updates to), to shorten up this part. * Applicability of ICANN principles of transparency and openness * Items for initial review - GNSO Resolution forming this group, GNSO Working Group Guidelines, GNSO Policy Development Process (to serve as a reference point for the DG) * Discussion of Work Plan – Review of Interim Chair's Draft Work Plan and discussion of alternatives and tools for completing work * Election of DG Leaders – The DG may elect to have co-chairs or vice-chairs. Once selected, the DG Chair(s) will need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council. May I suggest that no attempt to see vice-chairs as representation of that constituency in the group ? It's so much simpler to have 2 (either chair/vice-chair, co-chair/co-chair, chair/alternate chair) leaders instead of a complex structure... since *-chairs only have coordination but no definition role, it's of no use to see too much into the roles. Rubens _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Rightside Group, Ltd. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
Ron, I disagree. Being a registry (prospective, incumbent or future applicant) does not bring conflict. Following my suggestion of having 2 leadership positions (whether is chair/vice-chair, co-chairs etc.), I think it would be good to have one from each house (contracted parties and non-contracted parties). The idea of having no horses in the race would make everybody conflicted, as even current end-user registrants could be seen as conflicted since some people argue that the more new gTLDs there are, the less his or her domain is worth; every stakeholder has an interest in the program, but having an interest is different from having a conflict of interest. Rubens Em 07/08/2014, à(s) 14:59:000, Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> escreveu:
Dear colleagues,
My thought on the election of leadership is more focused on process, i.e., the Chair, V Chairs, or whatever the group decides is best, should be unconflicted. That is to say, they should neither be applicants nor new registries. Within the long list of members, I am sure that we can select those that have no horses in the race, as they say. In this way both the work and the optics will demonstrate transparency and accountability in an appropriate manner.
My two cents…
RA
Ron Andruff ONR Consulting, Inc.
From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Eckhaus Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:08 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
I second the suggestion of holding off on selection/election until the group fills out
Jeff
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> wrote: Everyone should have an SOI
If they don't have one setting one up is not hard
..
I'd also respectfully suggest that any election / choice of DG leaders be deferred
I suspect that the group's make up will change between now and September as people come back from holidays etc and become aware of the group's existence
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:13 AM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
be of an introductory nature. The proposed agenda is: Roll Call / Statements of Interest
Suggestion: only reading SoI for people that do not have GNSO SOIs (or have updates to), to shorten up this part.
Applicability of ICANN principles of transparency and openness Items for initial review - GNSO Resolution forming this group, GNSO Working Group Guidelines, GNSO Policy Development Process (to serve as a reference point for the DG) Discussion of Work Plan – Review of Interim Chair's Draft Work Plan and discussion of alternatives and tools for completing work Election of DG Leaders – The DG may elect to have co-chairs or vice-chairs. Once selected, the DG Chair(s) will need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council.
May I suggest that no attempt to see vice-chairs as representation of that constituency in the group ? It's so much simpler to have 2 (either chair/vice-chair, co-chair/co-chair, chair/alternate chair) leaders instead of a complex structure... since *-chairs only have coordination but no definition role, it's of no use to see too much into the roles.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Rightside Group, Ltd. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Agree with Ruben that being a registry (prospective, incumbent or future applicant) does not bring conflict. Good luck finding someone in our very small space that couldn't be accused of some form of conflict. Craig Schwartz Managing Director fTLD Registry Services, LLC 600 13th Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Office: +1 202 589 2532 Cell: +1 202 236 1154 Skype: craig-schwartz Twitter: ftld_Registry Please visit us at www.ftld.com On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 15:06:49 -0300, Rubens Kuhl wrote: Ron, I disagree. Being a registry (prospective, incumbent or future applicant) does not bring conflict. Following my suggestion of having 2 leadership positions (whether is chair/vice-chair, co-chairs etc.), I think it would be good to have one from each house (contracted parties and non-contracted parties). The idea of having no horses in the race would make everybody conflicted, as even current end-user registrants could be seen as conflicted since some people argue that the more new gTLDs there are, the less his or her domain is worth; every stakeholder has an interest in the program, but having an interest is different from having a conflict of interest. Rubens Em 07/08/2014, à(s) 14:59:000, Ron Andruff escreveu: Dear colleagues, My thought on the election of leadership is more focused on process, i.e., the Chair, V Chairs, or whatever the group decides is best, should be unconflicted. That is to say, they should neither be applicants nor new registries. Within the long list of members, I am sure that we can select those that have no horses in the race, as they say. In this way both the work and the optics will demonstrate transparency and accountability in an appropriate manner. My two cents… RA Ron Andruff ONR Consulting, Inc. From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Eckhaus Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:08 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds I second the suggestion of holding off on selection/election until the group fills out Jeff On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: Everyone should have an SOI If they don't have one setting one up is not hard .. I'd also respectfully suggest that any election / choice of DG leaders be deferred I suspect that the group's make up will change between now and September as people come back from holidays etc and become aware of the group's existence Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation& Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:13 AM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds be of an introductory nature. The proposed agenda is: * Roll Call / Statements of Interest Suggestion: only reading SoI for people that do not have GNSO SOIs (or have updates to), to shorten up this part. * Applicability of ICANN principles of transparency and openness * Items for initial review - GNSO Resolution forming this group, GNSO Working Group Guidelines, GNSO Policy Development Process (to serve as a reference point for the DG) * Discussion of Work Plan – Review of Interim Chair's Draft Work Plan and discussion of alternatives and tools for completing work * Election of DG Leaders – The DG may elect to have co-chairs or vice-chairs. Once selected, the DG Chair(s) will need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council. May I suggest that no attempt to see vice-chairs as representation of that constituency in the group ? It's so much simpler to have 2 (either chair/vice-chair, co-chair/co-chair, chair/alternate chair) leaders instead of a complex structure... since *-chairs only have coordination but no definition role, it's of no use to see too much into the roles. Rubens _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Rightside Group, Ltd. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg ------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Can I humbly suggest that I am elected the leader and in a very like ICANN manner be compensated at the very reasonable rate of $.05 per domain registration. Very truly yours, Michael H. Berkens President Worldwide Media, Inc. Get your Brand We have over 75,000 Premium Domains for sale http://www.MostWantedDomains.com Read our blog everyday for all the news and views from the domain industry: http://www.TheDomains.com On Aug 7, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Craig Schwartz <craig@ftld.com> wrote:
Agree with Ruben that being a registry (prospective, incumbent or future applicant) does not bring conflict.
Good luck finding someone in our very small space that couldn't be accused of some form of conflict.
Craig Schwartz Managing Director fTLD Registry Services, LLC 600 13th Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Office: +1 202 589 2532 Cell: +1 202 236 1154 Skype: craig-schwartz Twitter: ftld_Registry
Please visit us at www.ftld.com
On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 15:06:49 -0300, Rubens Kuhl<rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Ron,
I disagree. Being a registry (prospective, incumbent or future applicant) does not bring conflict. Following my suggestion of having 2 leadership positions (whether is chair/vice-chair, co-chairs etc.), I think it would be good to have one from each house (contracted parties and non-contracted parties).
The idea of having no horses in the race would make everybody conflicted, as even current end-user registrants could be seen as conflicted since some people argue that the more new gTLDs there are, the less his or her domain is worth; every stakeholder has an interest in the program, but having an interest is different from having a conflict of interest.
Rubens
Em 07/08/2014, à(s) 14:59:000, Ron Andruff<randruff@rnapartners.com> escreveu:
Dear colleagues,
My thought on the election of leadership is more focused on process, i.e., the Chair, V Chairs, or whatever the group decides is best, should be unconflicted. That is to say, they should neither be applicants nor new registries. Within the long list of members, I am sure that we can select those that have no horses in the race, as they say. In this way both the work and the optics will demonstrate transparency and accountability in an appropriate manner.
My two cents…
RA
Ron Andruff
ONR Consulting, Inc.
From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Eckhaus Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:08 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
I second the suggestion of holding off on selection/election until the group fills out
Jeff
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight<michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
Everyone should have an SOI
If they don't have one setting one up is not hard
..
I'd also respectfully suggest that any election / choice of DG leaders be deferred
I suspect that the group's make up will change between now and September as people come back from holidays etc and become aware of the group's existence
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation& Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:13 AM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
be of an introductory nature. The proposed agenda is:
Roll Call / Statements of Interest
Suggestion: only reading SoI for people that do not have GNSO SOIs (or have updates to), to shorten up this part.
Applicability of ICANN principles of transparency and openness
Items for initial review - GNSO Resolution forming this group, GNSO Working Group Guidelines, GNSO Policy Development Process (to serve as a reference point for the DG)
Discussion of Work Plan – Review of Interim Chair's Draft Work Plan and discussion of alternatives and tools for completing work
Election of DG Leaders – The DG may elect to have co-chairs or vice-chairs. Once selected, the DG Chair(s) will need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council.
May I suggest that no attempt to see vice-chairs as representation of that constituency in the group ? It's so much simpler to have 2 (either chair/vice-chair, co-chair/co-chair, chair/alternate chair) leaders instead of a complex structure... since *-chairs only have coordination but no definition role, it's of no use to see too much into the roles.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Rightside Group, Ltd. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
I tend to agree with Craig and Rubens. From my personal perspective I don’t think we would find a person that has no horse in the race, because then this person wouldn’t be part of this DG in the first place. Furthermore I second the suggestion from Michele and Jeff of holding off on selection / election. We do have an interim Chair and not hurry. Tobias On 07.08.2014, at 20:27, Craig Schwartz <craig@ftld.com> wrote:
Agree with Ruben that being a registry (prospective, incumbent or future applicant) does not bring conflict.
Good luck finding someone in our very small space that couldn't be accused of some form of conflict.
Craig Schwartz Managing Director fTLD Registry Services, LLC 600 13th Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Office: +1 202 589 2532 Cell: +1 202 236 1154 Skype: craig-schwartz Twitter: ftld_Registry
Please visit us at www.ftld.com
On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 15:06:49 -0300, Rubens Kuhl<rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Ron,
I disagree. Being a registry (prospective, incumbent or future applicant) does not bring conflict. Following my suggestion of having 2 leadership positions (whether is chair/vice-chair, co-chairs etc.), I think it would be good to have one from each house (contracted parties and non-contracted parties).
The idea of having no horses in the race would make everybody conflicted, as even current end-user registrants could be seen as conflicted since some people argue that the more new gTLDs there are, the less his or her domain is worth; every stakeholder has an interest in the program, but having an interest is different from having a conflict of interest.
Rubens
Em 07/08/2014, à(s) 14:59:000, Ron Andruff<randruff@rnapartners.com> escreveu:
Dear colleagues,
My thought on the election of leadership is more focused on process, i.e., the Chair, V Chairs, or whatever the group decides is best, should be unconflicted. That is to say, they should neither be applicants nor new registries. Within the long list of members, I am sure that we can select those that have no horses in the race, as they say. In this way both the work and the optics will demonstrate transparency and accountability in an appropriate manner.
My two cents…
RA
Ron Andruff
ONR Consulting, Inc.
From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Eckhaus Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:08 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
I second the suggestion of holding off on selection/election until the group fills out
Jeff
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight<michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
Everyone should have an SOI
If they don't have one setting one up is not hard
..
I'd also respectfully suggest that any election / choice of DG leaders be deferred
I suspect that the group's make up will change between now and September as people come back from holidays etc and become aware of the group's existence
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation& Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:13 AM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
be of an introductory nature. The proposed agenda is:
Roll Call / Statements of Interest
Suggestion: only reading SoI for people that do not have GNSO SOIs (or have updates to), to shorten up this part.
Applicability of ICANN principles of transparency and openness
Items for initial review - GNSO Resolution forming this group, GNSO Working Group Guidelines, GNSO Policy Development Process (to serve as a reference point for the DG)
Discussion of Work Plan – Review of Interim Chair's Draft Work Plan and discussion of alternatives and tools for completing work
Election of DG Leaders – The DG may elect to have co-chairs or vice-chairs. Once selected, the DG Chair(s) will need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council.
May I suggest that no attempt to see vice-chairs as representation of that constituency in the group ? It's so much simpler to have 2 (either chair/vice-chair, co-chair/co-chair, chair/alternate chair) leaders instead of a complex structure... since *-chairs only have coordination but no definition role, it's of no use to see too much into the roles.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Rightside Group, Ltd. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
I am conflicted here (pun intended). On the one hand, I have never agreed with the self-flagellation that ICANN imposed on itself (starting with the Board) over conflicts of interest. To be blunt, there are very few active ICANN community participants who have no horse in whatever race is being discussed at the time. What agonizing over conflicts of interests has done IMO, is ensure that the people with the right amount of knowledge are kept at arm's length and therefore cannot bring that knowledge to useful community debates. On the other hand, I think it's very hard in this instance to argue with Ron's points on optics. A group discussing the second round that selects as its chair a registry or registrar might pose problems in this regard. Contradictory I know... Also, we may choose someone who appears to have no conflict now, and who turns out to be an applicant in the second round! There's just no way of knowing that now. The person in question might not even know, because plans and business opportunities change... This is why in the past, I've tended to advocate a non anal approach to COIs. But once again, I see Ron's point... Best, Stéphane Van Gelder Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 8 August 2014 08:57, Tobias Sattler <sattler@united-domains.de> wrote:
I tend to agree with Craig and Rubens. From my personal perspective I don't think we would find a person that has no horse in the race, because then this person wouldn't be part of this DG in the first place. Furthermore I second the suggestion from Michele and Jeff of holding off on selection / election. We do have an interim Chair and not hurry.
Tobias
On 07.08.2014, at 20:27, Craig Schwartz <craig@ftld.com> wrote:
Agree with Ruben that being a registry (prospective, incumbent or future applicant) does not bring conflict.
Good luck finding someone in our very small space that couldn't be accused of some form of conflict.
Craig Schwartz Managing Director fTLD Registry Services, LLC 600 13th Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Office: +1 202 589 2532 Cell: +1 202 236 1154 Skype: craig-schwartz Twitter: ftld_Registry
Please visit us at www.ftld.com
On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 15:06:49 -0300, Rubens Kuhl<rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Ron,
I disagree. Being a registry (prospective, incumbent or future applicant) does not bring conflict. Following my suggestion of having 2 leadership positions (whether is chair/vice-chair, co-chairs etc.), I think it would be good to have one from each house (contracted parties and non-contracted parties).
The idea of having no horses in the race would make everybody conflicted, as even current end-user registrants could be seen as conflicted since some people argue that the more new gTLDs there are, the less his or her domain is worth; every stakeholder has an interest in the program, but having an interest is different from having a conflict of interest.
Rubens
Em 07/08/2014, à(s) 14:59:000, Ron Andruff<randruff@rnapartners.com> escreveu:
Dear colleagues,
My thought on the election of leadership is more focused on process, i.e., the Chair, V Chairs, or whatever the group decides is best, should be unconflicted. That is to say, they should neither be applicants nor new registries. Within the long list of members, I am sure that we can select those that have no horses in the race, as they say. In this way both the work and the optics will demonstrate transparency and accountability in an appropriate manner.
My two cents...
RA
*Ron Andruff *
*ONR Consulting, Inc. *
*From:* gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jeffrey Eckhaus *Sent:* Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:08 *To:* Michele Neylon - Blacknight *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
I second the suggestion of holding off on selection/election until the group fills out
Jeff
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight< michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
Everyone should have an SOI
If they don't have one setting one up is not hard
..
I'd also respectfully suggest that any election / choice of DG leaders be deferred
I suspect that the group's make up will change between now and September as people come back from holidays etc and become aware of the group's existence
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation& Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 <%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From:* gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rubens Kuhl *Sent:* Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:13 AM *To:* gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
be of an introductory nature. The proposed agenda is:
- Roll Call / Statements of Interest
Suggestion: only reading SoI for people that do not have GNSO SOIs (or have updates to), to shorten up this part.
- Applicability of ICANN principles of transparency and openness
- Items for initial review - GNSO Resolution forming this group, GNSO Working Group Guidelines, GNSO Policy Development Process (to serve as a reference point for the DG)
- Discussion of Work Plan - Review of Interim Chair's Draft Work Plan and discussion of alternatives and tools for completing work
- Election of DG Leaders - The DG may elect to have co-chairs or vice-chairs. Once selected, the DG Chair(s) will need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council.
May I suggest that no attempt to see vice-chairs as representation of that constituency in the group ? It's so much simpler to have 2 (either chair/vice-chair, co-chair/co-chair, chair/alternate chair) leaders instead of a complex structure... since *-chairs only have coordination but no definition role, it's of no use to see too much into the roles.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Rightside Group, Ltd. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg <http://webmail.encirca.com/hwebmail/services/go.php?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.ica...>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Dear all, I apologize for initiating an unintended divide. Perhaps I can push this discussion in another direction. How do folks feel about a non-contracted party Chair? That would put some distance between some of the things Stephane has highlighted and perhaps satisfy those who would like to see unconflicted as much as possible. Optically, that might also fit the bill. Regarding how many, i.e., 1 Chair with V Chairs or 2 Co-Chairs, etc. if I understood Bretts and Matts original mail, this group is expected to raise as many issues as possible and formulate them into some type of cogent document that will live on past this Discussion Group hence the name. That is to say, I understand that this is really preliminary work. If in fact that is the case, one Chair, with one V Chair (should the Chair be absent) would probably suffice, in my view. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff ONR Consulting, Inc. From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, August 8, 2014 05:26 To: Tobias Sattler Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the DiscussionGroup for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds I am conflicted here (pun intended). On the one hand, I have never agreed with the self-flagellation that ICANN imposed on itself (starting with the Board) over conflicts of interest. To be blunt, there are very few active ICANN community participants who have no horse in whatever race is being discussed at the time. What agonizing over conflicts of interests has done IMO, is ensure that the people with the right amount of knowledge are kept at arm's length and therefore cannot bring that knowledge to useful community debates. On the other hand, I think it's very hard in this instance to argue with Ron's points on optics. A group discussing the second round that selects as its chair a registry or registrar might pose problems in this regard. Contradictory I know... Also, we may choose someone who appears to have no conflict now, and who turns out to be an applicant in the second round! There's just no way of knowing that now. The person in question might not even know, because plans and business opportunities change... This is why in the past, I've tended to advocate a non anal approach to COIs. But once again, I see Ron's point... Best, Stéphane Van Gelder Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 8 August 2014 08:57, Tobias Sattler <sattler@united-domains.de <mailto:sattler@united-domains.de> > wrote: I tend to agree with Craig and Rubens. From my personal perspective I dont think we would find a person that has no horse in the race, because then this person wouldnt be part of this DG in the first place. Furthermore I second the suggestion from Michele and Jeff of holding off on selection / election. We do have an interim Chair and not hurry. Tobias On 07.08.2014, at 20:27, Craig Schwartz <craig@ftld.com <mailto:craig@ftld.com> > wrote: Agree with Ruben that being a registry (prospective, incumbent or future applicant) does not bring conflict. Good luck finding someone in our very small space that couldn't be accused of some form of conflict. Craig Schwartz Managing Director fTLD Registry Services, LLC 600 13th Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Office: +1 202 589 2532 Cell: +1 202 236 1154 <tel:%2B1%20202%20236%201154> Skype: craig-schwartz Twitter: ftld_Registry Please visit us at www.ftld.com <http://www.ftld.com> On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 15:06:49 -0300, Rubens Kuhl<rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> > wrote: Ron, I disagree. Being a registry (prospective, incumbent or future applicant) does not bring conflict. Following my suggestion of having 2 leadership positions (whether is chair/vice-chair, co-chairs etc.), I think it would be good to have one from each house (contracted parties and non-contracted parties). The idea of having no horses in the race would make everybody conflicted, as even current end-user registrants could be seen as conflicted since some people argue that the more new gTLDs there are, the less his or her domain is worth; every stakeholder has an interest in the program, but having an interest is different from having a conflict of interest. Rubens Em 07/08/2014, à(s) 14:59:000, Ron Andruff<randruff@rnapartners.com <mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com> > escreveu: Dear colleagues, My thought on the election of leadership is more focused on process, i.e., the Chair, V Chairs, or whatever the group decides is best, should be unconflicted. That is to say, they should neither be applicants nor new registries. Within the long list of members, I am sure that we can select those that have no horses in the race, as they say. In this way both the work and the optics will demonstrate transparency and accountability in an appropriate manner. My two cents RA Ron Andruff ONR Consulting, Inc. From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Eckhaus Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:08 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds I second the suggestion of holding off on selection/election until the group fills out Jeff On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight< <mailto:michele@blacknight.com> michele@blacknight.com> wrote: Everyone should have an SOI If they don't have one setting one up is not hard .. I'd also respectfully suggest that any election / choice of DG leaders be deferred I suspect that the group's make up will change between now and September as people come back from holidays etc and become aware of the group's existence Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation& Domains <http://www.blacknight.co/> http://www.blacknight.co/ <http://blog.blacknight.com/> http://blog.blacknight.com/ <http://www.technology.ie/> http://www.technology.ie Intl. <tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%C2%A0%209183072> +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: <tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: <http://twitter.com/mneylon> http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:13 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds be of an introductory nature. The proposed agenda is: * Roll Call / Statements of Interest Suggestion: only reading SoI for people that do not have GNSO SOIs (or have updates to), to shorten up this part. * Applicability of ICANN principles of transparency and openness * Items for initial review - GNSO Resolution forming this group, GNSO Working Group Guidelines, GNSO Policy Development Process (to serve as a reference point for the DG) * Discussion of Work Plan Review of Interim Chair's Draft Work Plan and discussion of alternatives and tools for completing work * Election of DG Leaders The DG may elect to have co-chairs or vice-chairs. Once selected, the DG Chair(s) will need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council. May I suggest that no attempt to see vice-chairs as representation of that constituency in the group ? It's so much simpler to have 2 (either chair/vice-chair, co-chair/co-chair, chair/alternate chair) leaders instead of a complex structure... since *-chairs only have coordination but no definition role, it's of no use to see too much into the roles. Rubens _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Rightside Group, Ltd. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg _____ _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg <http://webmail.encirca.com/hwebmail/services/go.php?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.ic ann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-dg> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Couldn't we just get on and do the work...it is not as if any decisions that bind anyone will be made and there is a LONG way it go before this turns into a new iteration of a guidebook. There isn't any need to hang about and wait for anything...even if some parts of half the world might still be taking short summer vacations... Liz ... Liz Williams tldomainsolutions@gmail.com m: +44 7824877757 t: +44 1392 581 214 w: www.lizwilliams.net
On 8 Aug 2014, at 15:15, "Ron Andruff" <randruff@rnapartners.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I apologize for initiating an unintended divide. Perhaps I can push this discussion in another direction. How do folks feel about a non-contracted party Chair? That would put some distance between some of the things Stephane has highlighted and perhaps satisfy those who would like to see ‘unconflicted’ as much as possible. Optically, that might also fit the bill.
Regarding how many, i.e., 1 Chair with V Chairs or 2 Co-Chairs, etc. if I understood Brett’s and Matt’s original mail, this group is expected to raise as many issues as possible and formulate them into some type of cogent document that will live on past this ‘Discussion Group’ – hence the name. That is to say, I understand that this is really preliminary work. If in fact that is the case, one Chair, with one V Chair (should the Chair be absent) would probably suffice, in my view.
Kind regards,
RA
Ron Andruff ONR Consulting, Inc.
From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, August 8, 2014 05:26 To: Tobias Sattler Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the DiscussionGroup for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
I am conflicted here (pun intended).
On the one hand, I have never agreed with the self-flagellation that ICANN imposed on itself (starting with the Board) over conflicts of interest.
To be blunt, there are very few active ICANN community participants who have no horse in whatever race is being discussed at the time.
What agonizing over conflicts of interests has done IMO, is ensure that the people with the right amount of knowledge are kept at arm's length and therefore cannot bring that knowledge to useful community debates.
On the other hand, I think it's very hard in this instance to argue with Ron's points on optics. A group discussing the second round that selects as its chair a registry or registrar might pose problems in this regard.
Contradictory I know...
Also, we may choose someone who appears to have no conflict now, and who turns out to be an applicant in the second round! There's just no way of knowing that now. The person in question might not even know, because plans and business opportunities change...
This is why in the past, I've tended to advocate a non anal approach to COIs. But once again, I see Ron's point...
Best,
Stéphane Van Gelder
Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com
On 8 August 2014 08:57, Tobias Sattler <sattler@united-domains.de> wrote: I tend to agree with Craig and Rubens. From my personal perspective I don’t think we would find a person that has no horse in the race, because then this person wouldn’t be part of this DG in the first place. Furthermore I second the suggestion from Michele and Jeff of holding off on selection / election. We do have an interim Chair and not hurry.
Tobias
On 07.08.2014, at 20:27, Craig Schwartz <craig@ftld.com> wrote:
Agree with Ruben that being a registry (prospective, incumbent or future applicant) does not bring conflict.
Good luck finding someone in our very small space that couldn't be accused of some form of conflict.
Craig Schwartz Managing Director fTLD Registry Services, LLC 600 13th Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Office: +1 202 589 2532 Cell: +1 202 236 1154 Skype: craig-schwartz Twitter: ftld_Registry
Please visit us at www.ftld.com
On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 15:06:49 -0300, Rubens Kuhl<rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Ron,
I disagree. Being a registry (prospective, incumbent or future applicant) does not bring conflict. Following my suggestion of having 2 leadership positions (whether is chair/vice-chair, co-chairs etc.), I think it would be good to have one from each house (contracted parties and non-contracted parties).
The idea of having no horses in the race would make everybody conflicted, as even current end-user registrants could be seen as conflicted since some people argue that the more new gTLDs there are, the less his or her domain is worth; every stakeholder has an interest in the program, but having an interest is different from having a conflict of interest.
Rubens
Em 07/08/2014, à(s) 14:59:000, Ron Andruff<randruff@rnapartners.com> escreveu:
Dear colleagues,
My thought on the election of leadership is more focused on process, i.e., the Chair, V Chairs, or whatever the group decides is best, should be unconflicted. That is to say, they should neither be applicants nor new registries. Within the long list of members, I am sure that we can select those that have no horses in the race, as they say. In this way both the work and the optics will demonstrate transparency and accountability in an appropriate manner.
My two cents…
RA
Ron Andruff
ONR Consulting, Inc.
From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Eckhaus Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:08 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
I second the suggestion of holding off on selection/election until the group fills out
Jeff
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight<michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
Everyone should have an SOI
If they don't have one setting one up is not hard
..
I'd also respectfully suggest that any election / choice of DG leaders be deferred
I suspect that the group's make up will change between now and September as people come back from holidays etc and become aware of the group's existence
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation& Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:13 AM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
be of an introductory nature. The proposed agenda is:
Roll Call / Statements of Interest
Suggestion: only reading SoI for people that do not have GNSO SOIs (or have updates to), to shorten up this part.
Applicability of ICANN principles of transparency and openness
Items for initial review - GNSO Resolution forming this group, GNSO Working Group Guidelines, GNSO Policy Development Process (to serve as a reference point for the DG)
Discussion of Work Plan – Review of Interim Chair's Draft Work Plan and discussion of alternatives and tools for completing work
Election of DG Leaders – The DG may elect to have co-chairs or vice-chairs. Once selected, the DG Chair(s) will need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council.
May I suggest that no attempt to see vice-chairs as representation of that constituency in the group ? It's so much simpler to have 2 (either chair/vice-chair, co-chair/co-chair, chair/alternate chair) leaders instead of a complex structure... since *-chairs only have coordination but no definition role, it's of no use to see too much into the roles.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Rightside Group, Ltd. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
I agree with Ron that a chair and vice chair are appropriate for a group this size. I also agree with Rubens, Tobias and Craig. Speaking frankly, everyone has a horse in the race of some kind and I don't think it's necessary to predetermine interests of a potential chair by assigning it to a contracted or non-contracted party. The chair, as is the case with ICANN working / discussion groups, has a duty to neutrality and a primary role of facilitating the work. I prefer not to worry about interests and instead vest some trust in the chair and indeed, begin our work, which will be substantial. On Aug 8, 2014, at 8:34 AM, Liz Williams wrote:
Couldn't we just get on and do the work...it is not as if any decisions that bind anyone will be made and there is a LONG way it go before this turns into a new iteration of a guidebook.
There isn't any need to hang about and wait for anything...even if some parts of half the world might still be taking short summer vacations...
Liz
... Liz Williams tldomainsolutions@gmail.com m: +44 7824877757 t: +44 1392 581 214 w: www.lizwilliams.net
On 8 Aug 2014, at 15:15, "Ron Andruff" <randruff@rnapartners.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I apologize for initiating an unintended divide. Perhaps I can push this discussion in another direction. How do folks feel about a non-contracted party Chair? That would put some distance between some of the things Stephane has highlighted and perhaps satisfy those who would like to see ‘unconflicted’ as much as possible. Optically, that might also fit the bill.
Regarding how many, i.e., 1 Chair with V Chairs or 2 Co-Chairs, etc. if I understood Brett’s and Matt’s original mail, this group is expected to raise as many issues as possible and formulate them into some type of cogent document that will live on past this ‘Discussion Group’ – hence the name. That is to say, I understand that this is really preliminary work. If in fact that is the case, one Chair, with one V Chair (should the Chair be absent) would probably suffice, in my view.
Kind regards,
RA
Ron Andruff ONR Consulting, Inc.
From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, August 8, 2014 05:26 To: Tobias Sattler Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the DiscussionGroup for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
I am conflicted here (pun intended).
On the one hand, I have never agreed with the self-flagellation that ICANN imposed on itself (starting with the Board) over conflicts of interest.
To be blunt, there are very few active ICANN community participants who have no horse in whatever race is being discussed at the time.
What agonizing over conflicts of interests has done IMO, is ensure that the people with the right amount of knowledge are kept at arm's length and therefore cannot bring that knowledge to useful community debates.
On the other hand, I think it's very hard in this instance to argue with Ron's points on optics. A group discussing the second round that selects as its chair a registry or registrar might pose problems in this regard.
Contradictory I know...
Also, we may choose someone who appears to have no conflict now, and who turns out to be an applicant in the second round! There's just no way of knowing that now. The person in question might not even know, because plans and business opportunities change...
This is why in the past, I've tended to advocate a non anal approach to COIs. But once again, I see Ron's point...
Best,
Stéphane Van Gelder
Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com
On 8 August 2014 08:57, Tobias Sattler <sattler@united-domains.de> wrote: I tend to agree with Craig and Rubens. From my personal perspective I don’t think we would find a person that has no horse in the race, because then this person wouldn’t be part of this DG in the first place. Furthermore I second the suggestion from Michele and Jeff of holding off on selection / election. We do have an interim Chair and not hurry.
Tobias
On 07.08.2014, at 20:27, Craig Schwartz <craig@ftld.com> wrote:
Agree with Ruben that being a registry (prospective, incumbent or future applicant) does not bring conflict.
Good luck finding someone in our very small space that couldn't be accused of some form of conflict.
Craig Schwartz Managing Director fTLD Registry Services, LLC 600 13th Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Office: +1 202 589 2532 Cell: +1 202 236 1154 Skype: craig-schwartz Twitter: ftld_Registry
Please visit us at www.ftld.com
On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 15:06:49 -0300, Rubens Kuhl<rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Ron,
I disagree. Being a registry (prospective, incumbent or future applicant) does not bring conflict. Following my suggestion of having 2 leadership positions (whether is chair/vice-chair, co-chairs etc.), I think it would be good to have one from each house (contracted parties and non-contracted parties).
The idea of having no horses in the race would make everybody conflicted, as even current end-user registrants could be seen as conflicted since some people argue that the more new gTLDs there are, the less his or her domain is worth; every stakeholder has an interest in the program, but having an interest is different from having a conflict of interest.
Rubens
Em 07/08/2014, à(s) 14:59:000, Ron Andruff<randruff@rnapartners.com> escreveu:
Dear colleagues,
My thought on the election of leadership is more focused on process, i.e., the Chair, V Chairs, or whatever the group decides is best, should be unconflicted. That is to say, they should neither be applicants nor new registries. Within the long list of members, I am sure that we can select those that have no horses in the race, as they say. In this way both the work and the optics will demonstrate transparency and accountability in an appropriate manner.
My two cents…
RA
Ron Andruff
ONR Consulting, Inc.
From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Eckhaus Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:08 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
I second the suggestion of holding off on selection/election until the group fills out
Jeff
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight<michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
Everyone should have an SOI
If they don't have one setting one up is not hard
..
I'd also respectfully suggest that any election / choice of DG leaders be deferred
I suspect that the group's make up will change between now and September as people come back from holidays etc and become aware of the group's existence
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation& Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:13 AM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
be of an introductory nature. The proposed agenda is:
Roll Call / Statements of Interest
Suggestion: only reading SoI for people that do not have GNSO SOIs (or have updates to), to shorten up this part.
Applicability of ICANN principles of transparency and openness
Items for initial review - GNSO Resolution forming this group, GNSO Working Group Guidelines, GNSO Policy Development Process (to serve as a reference point for the DG)
Discussion of Work Plan – Review of Interim Chair's Draft Work Plan and discussion of alternatives and tools for completing work
Election of DG Leaders – The DG may elect to have co-chairs or vice-chairs. Once selected, the DG Chair(s) will need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council.
May I suggest that no attempt to see vice-chairs as representation of that constituency in the group ? It's so much simpler to have 2 (either chair/vice-chair, co-chair/co-chair, chair/alternate chair) leaders instead of a complex structure... since *-chairs only have coordination but no definition role, it's of no use to see too much into the roles.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Rightside Group, Ltd. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Mason Cole VP Communications & Industry Relations Donuts Inc. ………………………………………… mason@donuts.co Ofc +1 503 908 7623 Cell +1 503 407 2555
Wholeheartedly agree with Mason here. I would even go further and say that I believe some of the more troublesome decisions made by the NGPC can be directly linked to the fact that, as a rule, anyone with any experience in the gTLD process is excluded on the ground of potential conflict. Conflicts are bad, but depriving yourself of experience is even worse in my view, especially since any subsequent round should learn from past experience and, yes, mistakes. Speaking of experience and horse racing, and by way of a long overdue introduction, I have been in the ICANN world since 2001, successively as a ccTLD Registry representative, a gTLD Registrar (where I was blessed to serve as Vice-Chair of the RSG alongside Jon and Mason), I founded a Registry Service Provider (home of 21 gTLDs in this round) and I am now managing the operations of a gTLD applicant whose parent company is a Registry Escrow Provider. And, yes, I am a Lawyer :-) I am delighted to be part of this group and hope, as Liz said, that we can start working pretty quickly. All the best, JC Le 08/08/14 09:03, « Mason Cole » <mason@donuts.co<mailto:mason@donuts.co>> a écrit : I agree with Ron that a chair and vice chair are appropriate for a group this size. I also agree with Rubens, Tobias and Craig. Speaking frankly, everyone has a horse in the race of some kind and I don't think it's necessary to predetermine interests of a potential chair by assigning it to a contracted or non-contracted party. The chair, as is the case with ICANN working / discussion groups, has a duty to neutrality and a primary role of facilitating the work. I prefer not to worry about interests and instead vest some trust in the chair and indeed, begin our work, which will be substantial. On Aug 8, 2014, at 8:34 AM, Liz Williams wrote: Couldn't we just get on and do the work...it is not as if any decisions that bind anyone will be made and there is a LONG way it go before this turns into a new iteration of a guidebook. There isn't any need to hang about and wait for anything...even if some parts of half the world might still be taking short summer vacations... Liz ... Liz Williams tldomainsolutions@gmail.com<mailto:tldomainsolutions@gmail.com> m: +44 7824877757 t: +44 1392 581 214 w: www.lizwilliams.net<http://www.lizwilliams.net/> On 8 Aug 2014, at 15:15, "Ron Andruff" <randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>> wrote: Dear all, I apologize for initiating an unintended divide. Perhaps I can push this discussion in another direction. How do folks feel about a non-contracted party Chair? That would put some distance between some of the things Stephane has highlighted and perhaps satisfy those who would like to see ‘unconflicted’ as much as possible. Optically, that might also fit the bill. Regarding how many, i.e., 1 Chair with V Chairs or 2 Co-Chairs, etc. if I understood Brett’s and Matt’s original mail, this group is expected to raise as many issues as possible and formulate them into some type of cogent document that will live on past this ‘Discussion Group’ – hence the name. That is to say, I understand that this is really preliminary work. If in fact that is the case, one Chair, with one V Chair (should the Chair be absent) would probably suffice, in my view. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff ONR Consulting, Inc. From:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, August 8, 2014 05:26 To: Tobias Sattler Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the DiscussionGroup for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds I am conflicted here (pun intended). On the one hand, I have never agreed with the self-flagellation that ICANN imposed on itself (starting with the Board) over conflicts of interest. To be blunt, there are very few active ICANN community participants who have no horse in whatever race is being discussed at the time. What agonizing over conflicts of interests has done IMO, is ensure that the people with the right amount of knowledge are kept at arm's length and therefore cannot bring that knowledge to useful community debates. On the other hand, I think it's very hard in this instance to argue with Ron's points on optics. A group discussing the second round that selects as its chair a registry or registrar might pose problems in this regard. Contradictory I know... Also, we may choose someone who appears to have no conflict now, and who turns out to be an applicant in the second round! There's just no way of knowing that now. The person in question might not even know, because plans and business opportunities change... This is why in the past, I've tended to advocate a non anal approach to COIs. But once again, I see Ron's point... Best, Stéphane Van Gelder Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com<http://post.milathan.com/> On 8 August 2014 08:57, Tobias Sattler <sattler@united-domains.de<mailto:sattler@united-domains.de>> wrote: I tend to agree with Craig and Rubens. From my personal perspective I don’t think we would find a person that has no horse in the race, because then this person wouldn’t be part of this DG in the first place. Furthermore I second the suggestion from Michele and Jeff of holding off on selection / election. We do have an interim Chair and not hurry. Tobias On 07.08.2014, at 20:27, Craig Schwartz <craig@ftld.com<mailto:craig@ftld.com>> wrote: Agree with Ruben that being a registry (prospective, incumbent or future applicant) does not bring conflict. Good luck finding someone in our very small space that couldn't be accused of some form of conflict. Craig Schwartz Managing Director fTLD Registry Services, LLC 600 13th Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Office: +1 202 589 2532 Cell: +1 202 236 1154<tel:%2B1%20202%20236%201154> Skype: craig-schwartz Twitter: ftld_Registry Please visit us at www.ftld.com<http://www.ftld.com/> On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 15:06:49 -0300, Rubens Kuhl<rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote: Ron, I disagree. Being a registry (prospective, incumbent or future applicant) does not bring conflict. Following my suggestion of having 2 leadership positions (whether is chair/vice-chair, co-chairs etc.), I think it would be good to have one from each house (contracted parties and non-contracted parties). The idea of having no horses in the race would make everybody conflicted, as even current end-user registrants could be seen as conflicted since some people argue that the more new gTLDs there are, the less his or her domain is worth; every stakeholder has an interest in the program, but having an interest is different from having a conflict of interest. Rubens Em 07/08/2014, à(s) 14:59:000, Ron Andruff<randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>> escreveu: Dear colleagues, My thought on the election of leadership is more focused on process, i.e., the Chair, V Chairs, or whatever the group decides is best, should be unconflicted. That is to say, they should neither be applicants nor new registries. Within the long list of members, I am sure that we can select those that have no horses in the race, as they say. In this way both the work and the optics will demonstrate transparency and accountability in an appropriate manner. My two cents… RA Ron Andruff ONR Consulting, Inc. From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Eckhaus Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:08 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds I second the suggestion of holding off on selection/election until the group fills out Jeff On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight<michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote: Everyone should have an SOI If they don't have one setting one up is not hard .. I'd also respectfully suggest that any election / choice of DG leaders be deferred I suspect that the group's make up will change between now and September as people come back from holidays etc and become aware of the group's existence Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation& Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie<http://www.technology.ie/> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072<tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%C2%A0%209183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:13 AM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds be of an introductory nature. The proposed agenda is: * Roll Call / Statements of Interest Suggestion: only reading SoI for people that do not have GNSO SOIs (or have updates to), to shorten up this part. * Applicability of ICANN principles of transparency and openness * Items for initial review - GNSO Resolution forming this group, GNSO Working Group Guidelines, GNSO Policy Development Process (to serve as a reference point for the DG) * Discussion of Work Plan – Review of Interim Chair's Draft Work Plan and discussion of alternatives and tools for completing work * Election of DG Leaders – The DG may elect to have co-chairs or vice-chairs. Once selected, the DG Chair(s) will need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council. May I suggest that no attempt to see vice-chairs as representation of that constituency in the group ? It's so much simpler to have 2 (either chair/vice-chair, co-chair/co-chair, chair/alternate chair) leaders instead of a complex structure... since *-chairs only have coordination but no definition role, it's of no use to see too much into the roles. Rubens _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Rightside Group, Ltd. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg<http://webmail.encirca.com/hwebmail/services/go.php?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-dg> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg Mason Cole VP Communications & Industry Relations Donuts Inc. ……………………………… …… …… mason@donuts.co<mailto:mason@donuts.co> Ofc +1 503 908 7623 Cell +1 503 407 2555 ________________________________ Jean-Christophe Vignes Director of Domain Operations NCC Group 123 Mission Street, Suite 1020 San Francisco, 94105 Telephone: +1 (415) 268 9235 Mobile: +1 (415) 528 9934 Fax: +1 (415) 974 6339 Website: www.nccgroup.com<http://www.nccgroup.com> Twitter: @NCCGroupplc<https://twitter.com/NCCGroupplc> Email: JC.Vignes@nccgroup.com<mailto:JC.Vignes@nccgroup.com> [http://www.nccgroup.com/media/192418/nccgrouplogo.jpg] <http://www.nccgroup.com/> ________________________________ This email is sent for and on behalf of NCC Group. NCC Group is the trading name of NCC Services Limited (Registered in England CRN: 2802141). Registered Office: Manchester Technology Centre, Oxford Road, Manchester, M1 7EF. The ultimate holding company is NCC Group plc (Registered in England CRN: 4627044). Confidentiality: This e-mail contains proprietary information, some or all of which may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by replying to this e-mail and then delete the original. If you are not the intended recipient you may not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on any information contained in this e-mail. You must not inform any other person other than NCC Group or the sender of its existence. For more information about NCC Group please visit www.nccgroup.com<http://www.nccgroup.com> P Before you print think about the ENVIRONMENT For more information please visit <a href="http://www.mimecast.com">http://www.mimecast.com<br> This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast.
All, I trust the group will elect a chair or chairs who are capable of facilitating the group's work while maintaining integrity of the process regardless of their background. Thanks, Thomas Rickert PS: For those I have not yet met, I would like to briefly introduce myself. My name is Thomas Rickert and I am a lawyer by profession (anwaelte.de). I have been working in the domain industry for more than 15 years. Further, I am chairing the so called Names & Numbers Forum with eco, an Industry Association with more than 750 members from more than 60 countries (eco.de). Additionally, I am a NomCom Appointee on the GNSO Council. Please see my SOI on ICANN's website for further information. I am interested in learning about the other group member's experience during the first round and would like to offer suggestions for future handling of the new gTLD process based on my experience. ============= thomas-rickert.tel +49.228.74.898.0
Am 08.08.2014 um 18:43 schrieb Jean-Christophe Vignes <JC.Vignes@nccgroup.com>:
Wholeheartedly agree with Mason here. I would even go further and say that I believe some of the more troublesome decisions made by the NGPC can be directly linked to the fact that, as a rule, anyone with any experience in the gTLD process is excluded on the ground of potential conflict. Conflicts are bad, but depriving yourself of experience is even worse in my view, especially since any subsequent round should learn from past experience and, yes, mistakes.
Speaking of experience and horse racing, and by way of a long overdue introduction, I have been in the ICANN world since 2001, successively as a ccTLD Registry representative, a gTLD Registrar (where I was blessed to serve as Vice-Chair of the RSG alongside Jon and Mason), I founded a Registry Service Provider (home of 21 gTLDs in this round) and I am now managing the operations of a gTLD applicant whose parent company is a Registry Escrow Provider. And, yes, I am a Lawyer :-)
I am delighted to be part of this group and hope, as Liz said, that we can start working pretty quickly.
All the best, JC
Le 08/08/14 09:03, « Mason Cole » <mason@donuts.co> a écrit :
I agree with Ron that a chair and vice chair are appropriate for a group this size.
I also agree with Rubens, Tobias and Craig. Speaking frankly, everyone has a horse in the race of some kind and I don't think it's necessary to predetermine interests of a potential chair by assigning it to a contracted or non-contracted party. The chair, as is the case with ICANN working / discussion groups, has a duty to neutrality and a primary role of facilitating the work. I prefer not to worry about interests and instead vest some trust in the chair and indeed, begin our work, which will be substantial.
On Aug 8, 2014, at 8:34 AM, Liz Williams wrote:
Couldn't we just get on and do the work...it is not as if any decisions that bind anyone will be made and there is a LONG way it go before this turns into a new iteration of a guidebook.
There isn't any need to hang about and wait for anything...even if some parts of half the world might still be taking short summer vacations...
Liz
... Liz Williams tldomainsolutions@gmail.com m: +44 7824877757 t: +44 1392 581 214 w: www.lizwilliams.net
On 8 Aug 2014, at 15:15, "Ron Andruff" <randruff@rnapartners.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I apologize for initiating an unintended divide. Perhaps I can push this discussion in another direction. How do folks feel about a non-contracted party Chair? That would put some distance between some of the things Stephane has highlighted and perhaps satisfy those who would like to see ‘unconflicted’ as much as possible. Optically, that might also fit the bill.
Regarding how many, i.e., 1 Chair with V Chairs or 2 Co-Chairs, etc. if I understood Brett’s and Matt’s original mail, this group is expected to raise as many issues as possible and formulate them into some type of cogent document that will live on past this ‘Discussion Group’ – hence the name. That is to say, I understand that this is really preliminary work. If in fact that is the case, one Chair, with one V Chair (should the Chair be absent) would probably suffice, in my view.
Kind regards,
RA
Ron Andruff ONR Consulting, Inc.
From:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, August 8, 2014 05:26 To: Tobias Sattler Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the DiscussionGroup for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
I am conflicted here (pun intended).
On the one hand, I have never agreed with the self-flagellation that ICANN imposed on itself (starting with the Board) over conflicts of interest.
To be blunt, there are very few active ICANN community participants who have no horse in whatever race is being discussed at the time.
What agonizing over conflicts of interests has done IMO, is ensure that the people with the right amount of knowledge are kept at arm's length and therefore cannot bring that knowledge to useful community debates.
On the other hand, I think it's very hard in this instance to argue with Ron's points on optics. A group discussing the second round that selects as its chair a registry or registrar might pose problems in this regard.
Contradictory I know...
Also, we may choose someone who appears to have no conflict now, and who turns out to be an applicant in the second round! There's just no way of knowing that now. The person in question might not even know, because plans and business opportunities change...
This is why in the past, I've tended to advocate a non anal approach to COIs. But once again, I see Ron's point...
Best,
Stéphane Van Gelder
Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com
On 8 August 2014 08:57, Tobias Sattler <sattler@united-domains.de> wrote: I tend to agree with Craig and Rubens. From my personal perspective I don’t think we would find a person that has no horse in the race, because then this person wouldn’t be part of this DG in the first place. Furthermore I second the suggestion from Michele and Jeff of holding off on selection / election. We do have an interim Chair and not hurry.
Tobias
On 07.08.2014, at 20:27, Craig Schwartz <craig@ftld.com> wrote:
Agree with Ruben that being a registry (prospective, incumbent or future applicant) does not bring conflict.
Good luck finding someone in our very small space that couldn't be accused of some form of conflict.
Craig Schwartz Managing Director fTLD Registry Services, LLC 600 13th Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Office: +1 202 589 2532 Cell: +1 202 236 1154 Skype: craig-schwartz Twitter: ftld_Registry
Please visit us at www.ftld.com
On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 15:06:49 -0300, Rubens Kuhl<rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Ron,
I disagree. Being a registry (prospective, incumbent or future applicant) does not bring conflict. Following my suggestion of having 2 leadership positions (whether is chair/vice-chair, co-chairs etc.), I think it would be good to have one from each house (contracted parties and non-contracted parties).
The idea of having no horses in the race would make everybody conflicted, as even current end-user registrants could be seen as conflicted since some people argue that the more new gTLDs there are, the less his or her domain is worth; every stakeholder has an interest in the program, but having an interest is different from having a conflict of interest.
Rubens
Em 07/08/2014, à(s) 14:59:000, Ron Andruff<randruff@rnapartners.com> escreveu:
Dear colleagues,
My thought on the election of leadership is more focused on process, i.e., the Chair, V Chairs, or whatever the group decides is best, should be unconflicted. That is to say, they should neither be applicants nor new registries. Within the long list of members, I am sure that we can select those that have no horses in the race, as they say. In this way both the work and the optics will demonstrate transparency and accountability in an appropriate manner.
My two cents…
RA
Ron Andruff
ONR Consulting, Inc.
From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Eckhaus Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:08 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
I second the suggestion of holding off on selection/election until the group fills out
Jeff
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight<michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
Everyone should have an SOI
If they don't have one setting one up is not hard
..
I'd also respectfully suggest that any election / choice of DG leaders be deferred
I suspect that the group's make up will change between now and September as people come back from holidays etc and become aware of the group's existence
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation& Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:13 AM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
be of an introductory nature. The proposed agenda is:
Roll Call / Statements of Interest
Suggestion: only reading SoI for people that do not have GNSO SOIs (or have updates to), to shorten up this part.
Applicability of ICANN principles of transparency and openness
Items for initial review - GNSO Resolution forming this group, GNSO Working Group Guidelines, GNSO Policy Development Process (to serve as a reference point for the DG)
Discussion of Work Plan – Review of Interim Chair's Draft Work Plan and discussion of alternatives and tools for completing work
Election of DG Leaders – The DG may elect to have co-chairs or vice-chairs. Once selected, the DG Chair(s) will need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council.
May I suggest that no attempt to see vice-chairs as representation of that constituency in the group ? It's so much simpler to have 2 (either chair/vice-chair, co-chair/co-chair, chair/alternate chair) leaders instead of a complex structure... since *-chairs only have coordination but no definition role, it's of no use to see too much into the roles.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Rightside Group, Ltd. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Mason Cole VP Communications & Industry Relations Donuts Inc. ……………………………… …… …… mason@donuts.co Ofc +1 503 908 7623 Cell +1 503 407 2555
Jean-Christophe Vignes Director of Domain Operations NCC Group 123 Mission Street, Suite 1020 San Francisco, 94105
Telephone: +1 (415) 268 9235 Mobile: +1 (415) 528 9934 Fax: +1 (415) 974 6339 Website: www.nccgroup.com Twitter: @NCCGroupplc Email: JC.Vignes@nccgroup.com
This email is sent for and on behalf of NCC Group. NCC Group is the trading name of NCC Services Limited (Registered in England CRN: 2802141). Registered Office: Manchester Technology Centre, Oxford Road, Manchester, M1 7EF. The ultimate holding company is NCC Group plc (Registered in England CRN: 4627044).
Confidentiality: This e-mail contains proprietary information, some or all of which may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by replying to this e-mail and then delete the original. If you are not the intended recipient you may not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on any information contained in this e-mail. You must not inform any other person other than NCC Group or the sender of its existence.
For more information about NCC Group please visit www.nccgroup.com
P Before you print think about the ENVIRONMENT
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Well, if it is important to some member to elect a Chair they want then we can still postpone the election. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t care about the election, but if the majority of the group feels better that way we should postpone it. Nevertheless I agree we should just get on and start working. It is not like we would need an elected Chair instead of a interim Chair to start in my opinion. Tobias On 08.08.2014, at 17:34, Liz Williams <tldomainsolutions@gmail.com> wrote:
Couldn't we just get on and do the work...it is not as if any decisions that bind anyone will be made and there is a LONG way it go before this turns into a new iteration of a guidebook.
There isn't any need to hang about and wait for anything...even if some parts of half the world might still be taking short summer vacations...
Liz
... Liz Williams tldomainsolutions@gmail.com m: +44 7824877757 t: +44 1392 581 214 w: www.lizwilliams.net
On 8 Aug 2014, at 15:15, "Ron Andruff" <randruff@rnapartners.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I apologize for initiating an unintended divide. Perhaps I can push this discussion in another direction. How do folks feel about a non-contracted party Chair? That would put some distance between some of the things Stephane has highlighted and perhaps satisfy those who would like to see ‘unconflicted’ as much as possible. Optically, that might also fit the bill.
Regarding how many, i.e., 1 Chair with V Chairs or 2 Co-Chairs, etc. if I understood Brett’s and Matt’s original mail, this group is expected to raise as many issues as possible and formulate them into some type of cogent document that will live on past this ‘Discussion Group’ – hence the name. That is to say, I understand that this is really preliminary work. If in fact that is the case, one Chair, with one V Chair (should the Chair be absent) would probably suffice, in my view.
Kind regards,
RA
Ron Andruff ONR Consulting, Inc.
From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, August 8, 2014 05:26 To: Tobias Sattler Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the DiscussionGroup for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
I am conflicted here (pun intended).
On the one hand, I have never agreed with the self-flagellation that ICANN imposed on itself (starting with the Board) over conflicts of interest.
To be blunt, there are very few active ICANN community participants who have no horse in whatever race is being discussed at the time.
What agonizing over conflicts of interests has done IMO, is ensure that the people with the right amount of knowledge are kept at arm's length and therefore cannot bring that knowledge to useful community debates.
On the other hand, I think it's very hard in this instance to argue with Ron's points on optics. A group discussing the second round that selects as its chair a registry or registrar might pose problems in this regard.
Contradictory I know...
Also, we may choose someone who appears to have no conflict now, and who turns out to be an applicant in the second round! There's just no way of knowing that now. The person in question might not even know, because plans and business opportunities change...
This is why in the past, I've tended to advocate a non anal approach to COIs. But once again, I see Ron's point...
Best,
Stéphane Van Gelder
Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com
On 8 August 2014 08:57, Tobias Sattler <sattler@united-domains.de> wrote: I tend to agree with Craig and Rubens. From my personal perspective I don’t think we would find a person that has no horse in the race, because then this person wouldn’t be part of this DG in the first place. Furthermore I second the suggestion from Michele and Jeff of holding off on selection / election. We do have an interim Chair and not hurry.
Tobias
On 07.08.2014, at 20:27, Craig Schwartz <craig@ftld.com> wrote:
Agree with Ruben that being a registry (prospective, incumbent or future applicant) does not bring conflict.
Good luck finding someone in our very small space that couldn't be accused of some form of conflict.
Craig Schwartz Managing Director fTLD Registry Services, LLC 600 13th Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Office: +1 202 589 2532 Cell: +1 202 236 1154 Skype: craig-schwartz Twitter: ftld_Registry
Please visit us at www.ftld.com
On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 15:06:49 -0300, Rubens Kuhl<rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Ron,
I disagree. Being a registry (prospective, incumbent or future applicant) does not bring conflict. Following my suggestion of having 2 leadership positions (whether is chair/vice-chair, co-chairs etc.), I think it would be good to have one from each house (contracted parties and non-contracted parties).
The idea of having no horses in the race would make everybody conflicted, as even current end-user registrants could be seen as conflicted since some people argue that the more new gTLDs there are, the less his or her domain is worth; every stakeholder has an interest in the program, but having an interest is different from having a conflict of interest.
Rubens
Em 07/08/2014, à(s) 14:59:000, Ron Andruff<randruff@rnapartners.com> escreveu:
Dear colleagues,
My thought on the election of leadership is more focused on process, i.e., the Chair, V Chairs, or whatever the group decides is best, should be unconflicted. That is to say, they should neither be applicants nor new registries. Within the long list of members, I am sure that we can select those that have no horses in the race, as they say. In this way both the work and the optics will demonstrate transparency and accountability in an appropriate manner.
My two cents…
RA
Ron Andruff
ONR Consulting, Inc.
From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Eckhaus Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:08 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
I second the suggestion of holding off on selection/election until the group fills out
Jeff
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight<michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
Everyone should have an SOI
If they don't have one setting one up is not hard
..
I'd also respectfully suggest that any election / choice of DG leaders be deferred
I suspect that the group's make up will change between now and September as people come back from holidays etc and become aware of the group's existence
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation& Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:13 AM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds
be of an introductory nature. The proposed agenda is:
Roll Call / Statements of Interest
Suggestion: only reading SoI for people that do not have GNSO SOIs (or have updates to), to shorten up this part.
Applicability of ICANN principles of transparency and openness
Items for initial review - GNSO Resolution forming this group, GNSO Working Group Guidelines, GNSO Policy Development Process (to serve as a reference point for the DG)
Discussion of Work Plan – Review of Interim Chair's Draft Work Plan and discussion of alternatives and tools for completing work
Election of DG Leaders – The DG may elect to have co-chairs or vice-chairs. Once selected, the DG Chair(s) will need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council.
May I suggest that no attempt to see vice-chairs as representation of that constituency in the group ? It's so much simpler to have 2 (either chair/vice-chair, co-chair/co-chair, chair/alternate chair) leaders instead of a complex structure... since *-chairs only have coordination but no definition role, it's of no use to see too much into the roles.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Rightside Group, Ltd. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Before we all get too wound up about conflicts it may help to distinguish between the POTENTIAL for a conflict and ACTUAL conflicts which result in CORRUPT behaviour. A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation occurring when an <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual> individual or <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization> organization is involved in multiple <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_%28emotion%29> interests, one of which could possibly <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrupt> corrupt the motivation. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impropriety> impropriety. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption> corruption occurs. So, for our purposes, the SOI's are the appropriate discovery of a potential conflict. A recusal from voting is a way of mitigation. Philip
All, As one with no horses in the past races, and unlikely to have horses in the future races here, I want to underscore the point made by Liz Williams. The first stage is capturing lessons learned, from whatever stakeholder's vantage point. We do need to hear from all stakeholder constituencies, including those with strong vested interests. At most the end produce of this stage will be something like a Green Paper that identifies what went well, what went badly, and why; as well as areas containing conflicted constituency vested interests. This is step one. Crafting the terms of reference for the next gTLD round builds from this information and is step two. The transparency of the work will insure that there are not lessons learned that are missed, or ignored. Sam Lanfranco On 08/08/2014 11:34 AM, Liz Williams wrote:
Couldn't we just get on and do the work...it is not as if any decisions that bind anyone will be made and there is a LONG way it go before this turns into a new iteration of a guidebook.
There isn't any need to hang about and wait for anything...even if some parts of half the world might still be taking short summer vacations...
I too have no horses in any races. I have been a member of the At-Large Advisory Committee for 6 of the last 8 years, and have been the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO since late 2007 (my predecessor was the illustrious Bret Fausett). In this capacity, I have been deeply involved with the last year of the development of the original GNSO recommendation for New gTLDs, and with all of the steps that followed. Alan
+++1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Liz Williams Envoyé : vendredi 8 août 2014 16:34 À : Ron Andruff Cc : <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Objet : Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the DiscussionGroup for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds Couldn't we just get on and do the work...it is not as if any decisions that bind anyone will be made and there is a LONG way it go before this turns into a new iteration of a guidebook. There isn't any need to hang about and wait for anything...even if some parts of half the world might still be taking short summer vacations... Liz ... Liz Williams tldomainsolutions@gmail.com m: +44 7824877757 t: +44 1392 581 214 w: www.lizwilliams.net On 8 Aug 2014, at 15:15, "Ron Andruff" <randruff@rnapartners.com> wrote: Dear all, I apologize for initiating an unintended divide. Perhaps I can push this discussion in another direction. How do folks feel about a non-contracted party Chair? That would put some distance between some of the things Stephane has highlighted and perhaps satisfy those who would like to see ‘unconflicted’ as much as possible. Optically, that might also fit the bill. Regarding how many, i.e., 1 Chair with V Chairs or 2 Co-Chairs, etc. if I understood Brett’s and Matt’s original mail, this group is expected to raise as many issues as possible and formulate them into some type of cogent document that will live on past this ‘Discussion Group’ – hence the name. That is to say, I understand that this is really preliminary work. If in fact that is the case, one Chair, with one V Chair (should the Chair be absent) would probably suffice, in my view. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff ONR Consulting, Inc. From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, August 8, 2014 05:26 To: Tobias Sattler Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the DiscussionGroup for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds I am conflicted here (pun intended). On the one hand, I have never agreed with the self-flagellation that ICANN imposed on itself (starting with the Board) over conflicts of interest. To be blunt, there are very few active ICANN community participants who have no horse in whatever race is being discussed at the time. What agonizing over conflicts of interests has done IMO, is ensure that the people with the right amount of knowledge are kept at arm's length and therefore cannot bring that knowledge to useful community debates. On the other hand, I think it's very hard in this instance to argue with Ron's points on optics. A group discussing the second round that selects as its chair a registry or registrar might pose problems in this regard. Contradictory I know... Also, we may choose someone who appears to have no conflict now, and who turns out to be an applicant in the second round! There's just no way of knowing that now. The person in question might not even know, because plans and business opportunities change... This is why in the past, I've tended to advocate a non anal approach to COIs. But once again, I see Ron's point... Best, Stéphane Van Gelder Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com On 8 August 2014 08:57, Tobias Sattler <sattler@united-domains.de> wrote: I tend to agree with Craig and Rubens. From my personal perspective I don’t think we would find a person that has no horse in the race, because then this person wouldn’t be part of this DG in the first place. Furthermore I second the suggestion from Michele and Jeff of holding off on selection / election. We do have an interim Chair and not hurry. Tobias On 07.08.2014, at 20:27, Craig Schwartz <craig@ftld.com> wrote: Agree with Ruben that being a registry (prospective, incumbent or future applicant) does not bring conflict. Good luck finding someone in our very small space that couldn't be accused of some form of conflict. Craig Schwartz Managing Director fTLD Registry Services, LLC 600 13th Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Office: +1 202 589 2532 Cell: +1 202 236 1154 <tel:%2B1%20202%20236%201154> Skype: craig-schwartz Twitter: ftld_Registry Please visit us at www.ftld.com On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 15:06:49 -0300, Rubens Kuhl<rubensk@nic.br> wrote: Ron, I disagree. Being a registry (prospective, incumbent or future applicant) does not bring conflict. Following my suggestion of having 2 leadership positions (whether is chair/vice-chair, co-chairs etc.), I think it would be good to have one from each house (contracted parties and non-contracted parties). The idea of having no horses in the race would make everybody conflicted, as even current end-user registrants could be seen as conflicted since some people argue that the more new gTLDs there are, the less his or her domain is worth; every stakeholder has an interest in the program, but having an interest is different from having a conflict of interest. Rubens Em 07/08/2014, à(s) 14:59:000, Ron Andruff<randruff@rnapartners.com> escreveu: Dear colleagues, My thought on the election of leadership is more focused on process, i.e., the Chair, V Chairs, or whatever the group decides is best, should be unconflicted. That is to say, they should neither be applicants nor new registries. Within the long list of members, I am sure that we can select those that have no horses in the race, as they say. In this way both the work and the optics will demonstrate transparency and accountability in an appropriate manner. My two cents… RA Ron Andruff ONR Consulting, Inc. From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Eckhaus Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:08 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds I second the suggestion of holding off on selection/election until the group fills out Jeff On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight< <mailto:michele@blacknight.com> michele@blacknight.com> wrote: Everyone should have an SOI If they don't have one setting one up is not hard .. I'd also respectfully suggest that any election / choice of DG leaders be deferred I suspect that the group's make up will change between now and September as people come back from holidays etc and become aware of the group's existence Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation& Domains <http://www.blacknight.co/> http://www.blacknight.co/ <http://blog.blacknight.com/> http://blog.blacknight.com/ <http://www.technology.ie/> http://www.technology.ie Intl. <tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%C2%A0%209183072> +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: <tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: <http://twitter.com/mneylon> http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:13 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds be of an introductory nature. The proposed agenda is: * Roll Call / Statements of Interest Suggestion: only reading SoI for people that do not have GNSO SOIs (or have updates to), to shorten up this part. * Applicability of ICANN principles of transparency and openness * Items for initial review - GNSO Resolution forming this group, GNSO Working Group Guidelines, GNSO Policy Development Process (to serve as a reference point for the DG) * Discussion of Work Plan – Review of Interim Chair's Draft Work Plan and discussion of alternatives and tools for completing work * Election of DG Leaders – The DG may elect to have co-chairs or vice-chairs. Once selected, the DG Chair(s) will need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council. May I suggest that no attempt to see vice-chairs as representation of that constituency in the group ? It's so much simpler to have 2 (either chair/vice-chair, co-chair/co-chair, chair/alternate chair) leaders instead of a complex structure... since *-chairs only have coordination but no definition role, it's of no use to see too much into the roles. Rubens _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Rightside Group, Ltd. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg _____ _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg <http://webmail.encirca.com/hwebmail/services/go.php?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.ica...> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg --- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. http://www.avast.com
+1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Ron Andruff Envoyé : jeudi 7 août 2014 19:00 À : gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Objet : Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds Dear colleagues, My thought on the election of leadership is more focused on process, i.e., the Chair, V Chairs, or whatever the group decides is best, should be unconflicted. That is to say, they should neither be applicants nor new registries. Within the long list of members, I am sure that we can select those that have no horses in the race, as they say. In this way both the work and the optics will demonstrate transparency and accountability in an appropriate manner. My two cents… RA Ron Andruff ONR Consulting, Inc. From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Eckhaus Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:08 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds I second the suggestion of holding off on selection/election until the group fills out Jeff On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> wrote: Everyone should have an SOI If they don't have one setting one up is not hard .. I'd also respectfully suggest that any election / choice of DG leaders be deferred I suspect that the group's make up will change between now and September as people come back from holidays etc and become aware of the group's existence Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 <tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%C2%A0%209183072> (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 <tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090> (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:13 AM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Agenda for First Meeting of the Discussion Group for New gTLD Subsequent Rounds be of an introductory nature. The proposed agenda is: * Roll Call / Statements of Interest Suggestion: only reading SoI for people that do not have GNSO SOIs (or have updates to), to shorten up this part. * Applicability of ICANN principles of transparency and openness * Items for initial review - GNSO Resolution forming this group, GNSO Working Group Guidelines, GNSO Policy Development Process (to serve as a reference point for the DG) * Discussion of Work Plan – Review of Interim Chair's Draft Work Plan and discussion of alternatives and tools for completing work * Election of DG Leaders – The DG may elect to have co-chairs or vice-chairs. Once selected, the DG Chair(s) will need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council. May I suggest that no attempt to see vice-chairs as representation of that constituency in the group ? It's so much simpler to have 2 (either chair/vice-chair, co-chair/co-chair, chair/alternate chair) leaders instead of a complex structure... since *-chairs only have coordination but no definition role, it's of no use to see too much into the roles. Rubens _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Rightside Group, Ltd. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you. --- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. http://www.avast.com
participants (19)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Bret Fausett -
BRG -
Craig Schwartz -
Glen de Saint Géry -
Jean-Christophe Vignes -
Jeffrey Eckhaus -
Liz Williams -
Mason Cole -
Michael Berkens -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Ron Andruff -
Rubens Kuhl -
Sam Lanfranco -
Stephane Van Gelder -
Steve Chan -
Thomas Rickert -
Tijani BEN JEMAA -
Tobias Sattler