And please don’t tell me I am free to file a complaint. That is not the answer. There were two people in chat who supported the notion of two tracks and you want to ignore that because it is not your solution. This is not the proper role for a co-chair. You should be raising the different proposals and asking for full discussion of them. Jeff specifically asked me for a proposal. I had to force you to take my comment to communicate that proposal. Then two other people supported it. I have never before experienced such a biased working group environment. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D32278.0AD66900] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 4:33 PM To: 'Rubens Kuhl' Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person Frankly, most people aren’t expressing opinions at this time on the list or on the call. I am very surprised as I think the role of a Co-Chair (and the Sub Pro Chairs) is to facilitate discussion. I don’t see that happening here. The environment from you and from Jeff is hostile. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D32277.E8C6ED80] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 4:28 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person On Aug 31, 2017, at 8:22 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Rubens, I don’ t have an objection to establishing 2 tracks – one for established services evaluation and one for new proposed services evaluation. You don't, but most people do, as both the call and the mailing list discussion have shown. I do object to charging more for an application that proposes new services – it’s against the goal of innovation and creativity. Something that can be raised for applicant support. It's a worthy cause, and lots of jurisdiction give tax breaks to R&D, innovation, entrepreneurship ... it's just out of scope for WT4. I do object to dealing with proposals for new services in the contracting phase. It is not transparent to the community. Not including the community in registry services reviews is how current GNSO policy is. This WG is not chartered to review it. Rubens ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
