Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person
Hi all, Were the revised slides from last Thursday's call relative to "rough consensus" sent out? Admittedly my inbox is quite full but a search on Work Track 4 did not reveal new slides. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _______________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 5:49 PM To: Rubens Kuhl; Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person Rubens, what GNSO Policy are you referring to? The only one I am aware of is the RSEP. Although public consultation is not specified in the policy, the implementation of the policy publishes the RSEP requests and has included an opportunity for public input during the 15 day evaluation process. Alan At 31/08/2017 07:28 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
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.
On 4 Dec 2017, at 19:40, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Hi all, Were the revised slides from last Thursday's call relative to "rough consensus" sent out?
Slides and recording are available at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2017-11-30+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro... <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2017-11-30+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> But the call was a recap, not a consensus call on any WT4 topics... Rubens
Cheryl and Rubens, There were consistent references to “rough consensus” in the discussion during this meeting. In addition, there were several changes to the slides which were recommended and agreed. These changes do not appear in the slides at this time. When may we expect them? Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D3735E.5754ED60] 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: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 3:44 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person On 4 Dec 2017, at 19:40, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Hi all, Were the revised slides from last Thursday's call relative to "rough consensus" sent out? Slides and recording are available at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2017-11-30+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro... But the call was a recap, not a consensus call on any WT4 topics... 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.
On 12 Dec 2017, at 20:31, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Cheryl and Rubens, There were consistent references to “rough consensus” in the discussion during this meeting.
As was mentioned right when the meeting started, it wasn't a meeting to decide anything, so no any mention was a reference to previous meetings when decisions were made.
In addition, there were several changes to the slides which were recommended and agreed. These changes do not appear in the slides at this time.
When may we expect them?
We won't rewrite history and pretend something different than actually presented had happened. It was a recap, so anything that might require change has to be decided during meetings that actually decide any of the topics where you can suggest changes to actual decisions. Rubens
Cheryl and Jeff, Rubens says there will be no changes to the slides even though I was asked during the call to suggest language and even though the understanding was changes would be made to the slides since the items were noted as “consensus re”. I must strongly object to Rubens’ refusal to revise the slides in accordance with the transcript from the call, including Kurt Pritz’ very vocal support for one of the changes and no objections from others to the other requested changes. As written, the slides are not reflective of the last call. If Rubens refuses to revise the slides, then please ask staff to do so based on the language that was typed into chat and agreed in the recording. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D37405.06EC6310] 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: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 5:33 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person Importance: High On 12 Dec 2017, at 20:31, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Cheryl and Rubens, There were consistent references to “rough consensus” in the discussion during this meeting. As was mentioned right when the meeting started, it wasn't a meeting to decide anything, so no any mention was a reference to previous meetings when decisions were made. In addition, there were several changes to the slides which were recommended and agreed. These changes do not appear in the slides at this time. When may we expect them? We won't rewrite history and pretend something different than actually presented had happened. It was a recap, so anything that might require change has to be decided during meetings that actually decide any of the topics where you can suggest changes to actual decisions. 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.
Anne, Since your request was directed to WG co-chairs I can't answer on it specifically, but regardless of what happens regarding the meeting #21 slides, I suggest that you table the changes you meant for specific topics for meetings that happen in the future so these positions have consideration at some point, and they are either incorporated into proposed languages or considered but not incorporated. When we have meetings for those topics I doubt people will look at the slide archive, but they will definitely join the call, listen to recording or read transcripts. Rubens
Em 13 de dez de 2017, à(s) 16:25:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> escreveu:
Cheryl and Jeff,
Rubens says there will be no changes to the slides even though I was asked during the call to suggest language and even though the understanding was changes would be made to the slides since the items were noted as “consensus re”.
I must strongly object to Rubens’ refusal to revise the slides in accordance with the transcript from the call, including Kurt Pritz’ very vocal support for one of the changes and no objections from others to the other requested changes.
As written, the slides are not reflective of the last call. If Rubens refuses to revise the slides, then please ask staff to do so based on the language that was typed into chat and agreed in the recording.
Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> 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: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 5:33 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person Importance: High
On 12 Dec 2017, at 20:31, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote:
Cheryl and Rubens, There were consistent references to “rough consensus” in the discussion during this meeting.
As was mentioned right when the meeting started, it wasn't a meeting to decide anything, so no any mention was a reference to previous meetings when decisions were made.
In addition, there were several changes to the slides which were recommended and agreed. These changes do not appear in the slides at this time.
When may we expect them?
We won't rewrite history and pretend something different than actually presented had happened. It was a recap, so anything that might require change has to be decided during meetings that actually decide any of the topics where you can suggest changes to actual decisions.
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.
participants (2)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Rubens Kuhl