Many thanks Carlos for your thoughtful answers and not being afraid to go to substance. I have always understood the role of a Co-Chair (and in fact have insisted on that role being followed quite recently in a different subteam). I assume all four candidates are qualified to assume a Co-Chair role and just wanted to dig a bit deeper and you have done that. Your comments make sense to me and reflect a very thoughtful approach. Very sorry indeed about the hurricane – and wishing Costa Rica a rapid recovery. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D33E7C.64A0C140] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez [mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 2:19 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Steve Chan; Mike Rodenbaugh; Rob Hall; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD) Hello Anne, I trust your second question is palatable to all involved. In any case I would like to give it a try. So lets discuss it because I'm afraid i carry a lot of ideas with me and I hope I can apply them in a positive way. If it disqualifies me for the role of a Co-Chair, so let it be! I have few points to make, based on recent experience where the Co-Chairs are expected to play an important role: 1. Looking for clear defined boundaries of the discussion: I think that the <dot.cities> in the last round have been successful to certain degree: at least they are proof that there is demand for some category (this word has been selected on purpose) of GeoNames, that is much narrower than just <Country and Territory Names>. In that sense the WT5 should be able to make progress beyond the previous ccNSO WG on the one side, and the previous ccNSO-GNSO CWG on the other. So we need to recognize the necessity to go BEYOND Country and Territory names, just because <dot.cities> and <dot.geo-adjectives> like .swiss have stepped forward without many restrictions. 2. Being based in permission-less innovation: I'm a strong believer that the expansion of the DNS is a window to innovation, as the previous round shows and my first point proves (dot.cities), even if the registration numbers are how-ever low. I think that delegation®istration is a better path forward than any list of protected names (as the recent case of a famous river shows!). So I believe there should be an expansion in GeoNames for competition purposes, but also to open up space for some cultural and linguistic values, without having to dicsuss those value other than the geographic are where do you find them. The reason why this is necessary, is based just in the fac that we have already made space for new gTLDs for purely linguistic reasons, as it is the case of the IDNs. 3. Looking forward to a strong consensus for the recommendations: I think the WT5 has to avoid coming up with a long laundry list of ideas trying to please everybody, and look for a minimum set of recommendations that is carried by a very very strong consensus so it really survives into the next round. 4. Respect for established rules of the game. In my expression of interest I tried to make clear that some pieces of the cake, like (a) the 2-letter codes for Country and Territory names is the basis for the ccTLDs and (b) the global standard for trademarks are not for grabs! They have been there for quite some time and it is not our task to try to change them (even if I don't like them a lot...) So, in a nutshell I'm not afraid to say that I think I better represent the GNSO in terms of being: * positively pro-expansion of the DNS space for the interest of smaller and less business oritned groups of people, and ** pro policy based general frameworks (as opposed to restrictive lists) than if I try to would represent either the GACs, the ccNSO or ALACs in the WT5 Leadership (ALAC being the other part of the community I could have considered representing). So, my cards are on the table dear Anne. And I hope that by following up the 4 rules above (and any other that you or the WT5 may agree on) my prejudices and appetites will be kept under control! I wish you all a nice and quiet weekend, while we mourn in Costa Rica the few deaths and destruction of tropical storm Nate, which is hitting us hard even if much lighter than other recent storms. Hope Nicaragua and Honduras don't suffer too much today and tomorrow. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Great reminder. I think that what I was trying to get at was the issue of bias and pre-conceived notions. SO THE QUESTION TO ALL CANDIDATES IS: How will you avoid bringing pre-conceived desired outcomes into the discussion in your role as Co-Chair? Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D33E7C.0F51EB10] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2017 6:32 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; Rob Hall Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD) Mike, Rob, Anne, all, Indeed, the role of Chair is to manage the process. Please see section 2.2.1 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf and additional detail in the description attached. While perhaps a minor point, I’d note that the WG is seeking to appoint a GNSO co-lead for a sub team rather than a WG chair, though the guidance is likely still relevant and informative. Best, Steve From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Date: Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 4:51 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD) Agreed. Discussion of potential co-chairs should be purely procedural, and should not involve discussion of substantive WG issues. I imagine the WG Guidelines might have some guidance on that point, which Staff might please point out? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087<tel:(415)%20738-8087> http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Perhaps I am being naïve, but is the answer not contained in your question ? The job of a co-chair is to facilitate discussion. The group decides what is worth more time or not. The Chairs job is to facilitate the will of the group. A chair is not a CEO. They do not lead. They facilitate. They keep the group on point and moving forward productively. I am not sure we should be choosing a chair based on their opinions of specific issues. To me, it is far more important they understand the role of chair as opposed to what their opinion on any one issue is. Rob. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 7:07 PM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD) Or more appropriately phrased, How would you as Co-Chair, facilitate discussion on the matters in 1 – 4 below and are some worth more time than others in the discussion? Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image005.png@01D33E7C.0F51EB10] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2017 4:03 PM To: 'Jeff Neuman'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD) QUESTION FOR ALL THE CANDIDATES (SINCE I’M SURE THEY HAVE ALL THOUGHT ABOUT THIS): How do you propose to balance the interests of governments with those of other applicants for names that do not constitute city or country names, but have some “geographic identity”? (Please consider regions, rivers, etc.) Would you 1. Give priority to government-based applications in the event there are competing applications for the same name? 1. Establish a Government Objection process whereby competing interests could be weighed? If so, what criteria would be measured by the Panel that could result in a successful Government Objection Process? 1. Require government approval for all applications having “geographic identity” even if not a city or country name? 1. Give priority to brand applications if the brand (that is not a city or country) has long-standing trademark recognition and value independent of its “geographic identity”? Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image006.png@01D33E7C.0F51EB10] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2017 8:09 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Candidates for the GNSO WT 5 Co-Leader (DISCUSSION PERIOD) All, As discussed on our last call, Avri, Cheryl and I have asked each of the candidates for the GNSO Co-Leader position on Work Track 5 (GNSO Co-Leader) if they would object to public disclosure of their names and expressions of interest for the position. I am happy to report that each of the candidates have agreed. In addition, we received one additional candidate since our last meeting. Nominations for candidates are now closed. The four candidates for the GNSO Co-Leader position are (in alphabetical order): 1. Ching Chiao 2. Carlos Raul Gutierrez 3. Greg Shatan 4. Martin Sutton I have attached each of their expressions of interest. By the publication of these names, the leadership of the SubPro PDP Working Group is kicking off a discussion period on the candidates. Keeping in mind ICANN’s standards of expected behavior, questions and comments about the candidates may now be posted. If you have a question for one or more particular candidates, please make sure that you include the words “QUESTION FOR _________” in the subject or QUESTION FOR ALL CANDIDATES. This is not required, but will help us keep track of all the questions so that we can make sure that they are answered. Finally, ass discussed, it is our intention as a leadership team (The Co-Leaders of the full working group along with the WT 1-4 co-leaders) to discuss our recommendation on our next call scheduled for Monday, October 9th based on the discussions, comments and questions on this list. Please let us know if you have any questions. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg ________________________________ 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.
