- ispcp - lists.icann.org

comments please: a drawing for our comment on policy vs. implementation
by Mike O'Connor Feb. 27, 2013

Feb. 27, 2013

hi all, i'm drafting our reply-comments to the Policy vs Implementation working paper. as i've read the other comments, i have started to come to the position that we may be trying to over-legistlate this. my basic idea is this -- rather that a huge effort to develop detailed criteria for each possible Policy vs Implementation decision, what if we put a review by the AC/SO's into the process? so i've drawn a flow diagram of a possible way to handle the process and would be very interested in your thoughts. the two changes to the process implied by Marika's drawing are: - insert the AC/SOs in the decision-making process - indicate that the process of review is iterative -- that AC/SOs get to send the decision back to the staff for review/refinement i think this does a few things - it's an appropriate task for AC/SOs, in their policy-management role - it reduces the need for excruciating detail in criteria and (correctly, in my view) increases reliance on the judgement and wisdom of the policy-management bodies - provides a chance to iteratively arrive at an approach that has broad approval and acceptance in the community. the picture is attached. any thoughts? slashing criticism ("Mikey you're crazy") is fine! mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

2 2

"Policy Process" public-comment
by Mike O'Connor Feb. 25, 2013

Feb. 25, 2013

hi all, i totally missed the public-comment period deadline on the "Policy vs Implementation" paper that Marika and Margie developed. here's a link to the public comment forum https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/policy-implementation-31jan13-… fortunately, there *are* comments from other constituencies and thus we can submit a reply comment. unless somebody objects, i'd like to have a go at this. mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

3 4

WG note -- IRTP-D (aka "the final frontier") working group open for volunteers
by Mike O'Connor Feb. 19, 2013

Feb. 19, 2013

hi all, i just saw an announcement for the final IRTP (Inter Registrar Transfer Policy) working group -- in the continuing series that stretches back almost 5 years. i've volunteered already (i want to collect the complete set of complementary coffee mugs) but would welcome anybody else who would like to join in. here's the link to the announcement https://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/update/update-feb13-en.htm#6 mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

2 2

ISPCP feedback on the Intercessional meeting
by tony holmes Feb. 18, 2013

Feb. 18, 2013

Dear David/Rob The ISPCP very much appreciate the efforts undertaken by the ICANN staff to facilitate and actively engage in the recent Intercessional NCPH meeting at the ICANN office in LA. We discussed the meeting during our recent conference call and offer the following feedback. Without doubt the meeting proved to be a positive experience, facilitating more detailed discussion and interaction between all involved parties than its possible to achieve at full ICANN meetings where pressure on time and key personnel tends to prohibit that. Whilst our constituency offer full support for meetings of this type to continue, as with most new approaches we would look to build on this initial experience and capitalise on lessons learnt. There were many positives; - The opportunity to spend quality time in discussion with Fadi where we focused on some of the key issues for ICANN was very much appreciated. The frank and open nature of those discussions established a firm base for future dialogue. We welcome and embrace this new spirit of co-operation that Fadi has brought to ICANN, both within the organisation itself and externally where ICANN continue to face so many difficult challenges. - Being able to discuss key policy issues with ICANN staff responsible for those areas with a reduced number of participants enabled far more qualitative debate. - The opportunity to meet and get to know better other members of the NCPH, thereby identifying previously less well understood areas of agreement as well as understanding far better area's where we currently hold differing views. Again, the intensity of full ICANN meetings tends to prevent that happening to the same degree. - Facilitation of face to face dialogue between constituency, stakeholder group members and ICANN staff of which there can never be too much. Particularly where members are actively engaged in a number of diverse working groups which often accounts for much of their time at full ICANN meetings. The more relaxed and informal environment of the intercessional meeting provided the ideal platform. There are also areas where basic changes to the initial approach could rapidly improve the effectiveness of future meetings. - The provision of short briefing papers in advance that would ensure all involved parties have a basic level of understanding at the start of each session. - More detailed planning at the session level prior to the meeting, involving both staff and participants. It would be helpful to seek input on key points/questions that require specific focus during the session. - Sessions clearly segregated to facilitate briefings and clarifying questions followed by adequate opportunity to contribute and exchange views. There were a few sessions during the intercessional which failed to facilitate adequate debate, normally due to lengthy presentations that eroded much of the available time. - Increased opportunity to seek and exchange views on key issues between different parties. The opportunity to get below the veneer of some issues and actively debate contentious points that underpin opposing views (both within the NCPH and broader) wasn't fully realised. It's the view of the ISPCP that debate at that detailed level often offers the only way to achieving consensus policy. - An informal record of key points and issues raised from discussions. This would also assist in ensuring that participants of all involved groups who are unable to attend these meetings receive a common understanding of what took place. - A feedback session at the end of the meeting to highlight what worked really well/what could be improved. We hope the points raised above prove helpful when considering possible future meetings. Submitted on behalf of the ISPCP Constituency. Tony Holmes Chairman ISPCP

1 0

interesting NYTimes piece on where mobile is going -- doesn't mention domain names
by Mike O'Connor Feb. 18, 2013

Feb. 18, 2013

hi all, here's a pretty-typical piece of "where is the Internet going?" prediction from the NYTimes (summarizing a ComScore research article). their conclusion is that there's a pretty massive shift to mobile from the desktop. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/tech-predictions-for-2013-its-all-… all the usual stuff is in there. and, not surprisingly in my view, new gTLDs don't make it on to the radar. in fact, my sense of mobile is that it depends way *less* on domain names than the desktop space. so are new gTLDs arriving just in time to become part of that "old style" Internet? :-) this is a pure troll -- no need to reply. mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Whois Registrant Identification Study, Draft Report
by Mike O'Connor Feb. 17, 2013

Feb. 17, 2013

interesting. i didn't realize this Whois study was ready for release. but here it is. the links at the bottom of the page (to the various documents) are confusing. the one to the actual report is http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/registrant-identification-summary-06f… mikey Begin forwarded message: > From: "ICANN News Alert" <communications(a)icann.org> > Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Whois Registrant Identification Study, Draft Report > Date: February 15, 2013 9:30:44 PM CST > To: <mike(a)haven2.com> > > > News Alert > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-15feb13-en.htm > > Whois Registrant Identification Study, Draft Report > 15 February 2013 > > Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 15 February 2013 > Categories/Tags: Policy Processes > Purpose (Brief): This study, conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago, uses Whois to classify entities that register gTLD domain names, including natural persons, legal persons, and Privacy/Proxy service providers. Using associated Internet content, the study classifies entities using those domains, and observed potentially commercial activities. Findings will help the community understand how Registrants identify themselves in Whois. > Public Comment Box Link: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-regid-15feb13-en.htm > > > > This message was sent to mike(a)haven2.com from: > ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > Email Marketing by > > Manage Your Subscription > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

2 1

Composition of the Accountability & Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT 2) | ICANN
by Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben＠t-online.de Feb. 16, 2013

Feb. 16, 2013

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-15feb13-en.htm Interesting to see that there will be no CSG rep on this RT. Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

FW: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council
by Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben＠t-online.de Feb. 14, 2013

Feb. 14, 2013

I'd like to put a short discussion about the letter annexed to the agenda today. Clearly BC and IPC are against sending this letter. There shall be a last try to find a conclusion about. Fadi's deadline is end of Feb. We should settle our position. Regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Original Message----- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:00:47 +0100 Subject: [council] Current draft of Fadi's requested communication from council From: Mason Cole <mcole(a)5x5com.com> To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org List" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Council colleagues -- As you know, Fadi requested of the council its input regarding the strawman proposal resulting from the BC's and IPC's request for additional RPMs in new gTLDs. On December 27, I circulated an early draft of a council reply. The communication is due very shortly, and has been taken up by a small group within the council to ensure that all points of view are represented. Because this is an agenda item for our meeting this week, at Maria Farrell's helpful suggestion, I'm sending the current draft to council so we can be prepared to discuss it then. This draft does not reflect additional input of the BC and IPC -- if this is provided prior to the meeting, I'll be happy to forward it to the council. Thanks -- Mason

4 5

Draft agenda for todays call
by tony holmes Feb. 14, 2013

Feb. 14, 2013

DRAFT AGENDA 1. Follow-up on Intercessional meeting in LA 2. Preparations for Beijing 3. ISPCP agenda for Beijing 4. Update on ISP CEO Roundtable meeting 5. Update on WGs 6. AoB Please feel free to add. Tony

2 1

FW: [council] FW: GNSO Council Vice Chair from NCPH
by Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben＠t-online.de Feb. 14, 2013

Feb. 14, 2013

All, Please note below. Jonathan FROM: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] SENT: 12 February 2013 22:46 TO: Jonathan Robinson (jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com) 'Glen de Saint Géry'; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de) CC: Marilyn S. Cade (marilynscade(a)hotmail.com) Robin Gross (robin(a)ipjustice.org) Tony Holmes; Kristina Rosette; Chris LaHatte (chris.lahatte(a)icann.org) SUBJECT: GNSO Council Vice Chair from NCPH Jonathan and colleagues, This is to inform you that CSG and NCSG leadership met on the sidelines of the recent NCPH intersessional meeting and agreed that Wolf Ulrich Knoben will continue to serve as the Vice Chair of the Council from our House for the remainder of this term. The two stakeholder groups also agreed on a protocol for selection of Vice Chair for the term beginning at the ICANN annual meeting in Buenos Aires, and further agreed to meet no later than the second ICANN meeting of 2014 to set procedures for selection of vice chair for the following term and perhaps beyond. The two SGs thank ICANN Ombudsman Chris LaHatte for his assistance in helping us reach this agreement. Steve Metalitz, for CSG

1 0