Mailing Lists
[SPAM] [GTLD-WG] Fw: [Euro-board] WG: [ALAC-Internal] Fwd: URGENT-ALAC statement on IRTP report
Posted May 4th, 2009 by Mailing list user
FYI - these are my comments that I sent to the Euro Board list.
Reading through comments from others, it appears that it echoes some
concerns in other constituencies.
Kind regards,
Olivier
----- Original Message -----
From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond"
To: "Wolf Ludwig" ; "Patrick Vande Walle"
Cc: "Euro Board"
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Euro-board] WG: Re: [ALAC-Internal] Fwd: Re:
[GTLD-WG]URGENT-ALAC statement on IRTP report
> Wolf:
>
> thank you for having forwarded Patrick's draft to the Euro list & to
> here.
>
> I, as an individual EURALO board member, am in complete agreement
> with this excellent draft, and also hope that if there is not enough
> time for ALAC to approve it formally, I hope that EURALO can act
> quickly enough to agree to it, in time for it to be formally
> submitted. The issues raised are *essential* to the ALAC's mission
> of being ICANN's conscience and I am very pleased that they are
> dealt with in such a professional and concise manner by ALAC.
>
> Erratum:
>
> - Under: "Whois requirements for new service"
> We are surprised the only reference to privacy in the report in the
> report is about privacy as a (paid for) service.
>
> -> we are surprised THAT the only reference...
> -> note the repeat of "in the report"
>
> Next paragraph: replace "Further" with "Furthermore"
>
> Further discussion
>
> I attended a meeting of Internet experts under Chatham House Rules
> in
> London last week and the matter came up for discussion.
> The general concensus around the table was that ICANN was setting a
> dangerous precedent in stepping into areas it should not step into
> re:
> several issues. The issue of Copyright is an age-old issue which is
> very complex and near intractable to deal with internationally. WIPO
> is the agency specifically in charge of this, and its budget which
> is in
> excess of 600 Million Swiss Francs is huge compared to the ICANN
> budget for these matters. ICANN risks burdening itself by shifting
> the Copyright battlefield into its own home, and risks wasting such
> resources instead of following its real mission, as defined in the
> JPA
> agreement. Expect to hear criticism re: that wrt post-JPA.
>
> My own comment is that I have a real concern re: capture. This
> process,
> it seems, is being rushed through and might be a form of capture by
> a
> community (namely IP lawyers) - and such capture is also being
> suspected by others - and this will *not* play in ICANN's favour.
> I am not sure if is would be politically correct for EURALO to raise
> the "capture danger" flag. Perhaps it is completely outside the
> scope of EURALO. Perhaps I am mistaken and see capture where there
> isn't, but I believe there is no smoke without fire and the speed
> and manner in which the IRTP working group has been set-up and is
> operating, including the limited amount of time it is allowing for
> external comments, make me raise my eyebrows and feel uncomfortable.
>
> Since I have no posting privilege on the ALAC-Internal list, please
> feel free to forward where necessary/desired.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> Ref: Chatham House Rule
> http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/chathamhouserule/
>
_______________________________________________
GTLD-WG mailing list
GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge-lists.ic...
Working Group direct URL: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy
[GTLD-WG] Fw: [Euro-board] WG: [ALAC-Internal] Fwd: URGENT-ALA
This may be a very naive suggestion, but instead of a IP Clearinghouse
and GPML list being maintained as a separate process outside of the
proposed v2 of the gTLD Application Guidebook, have a category of gTLD
which trademark holders can apply for.
Call it a trademark/brand name gTLDs category. With this category of
gTLDs, applicants cannot operate a gTLD, but pay to ensure that the
gTLD is NOT introduced.
Such applicants would then go through the same process as applicants
for new gTLDs.
(the administrative completeness check, initial evaluation, objection
filing, extended evaluation, dispute resolution, etc).
Dev T
Trinidad and Tobago Computer Society
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> FYI - these are my comments that I sent to the Euro Board list.
> Reading through comments from others, it appears that it echoes some
> concerns in other constituencies.
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond"
> To: "Wolf Ludwig" ; "Patrick Vande Walle"
>
> Cc: "Euro Board"
> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 2:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [Euro-board] WG: Re: [ALAC-Internal] Fwd: Re:
> [GTLD-WG]URGENT-ALAC statement on IRTP report
>
>
>> Wolf:
>>
>> thank you for having forwarded Patrick's draft to the Euro list & to
>> here.
>>
>> I, as an individual EURALO board member, am in complete agreement with
>> this excellent draft, and also hope that if there is not enough time for
>> ALAC to approve it formally, I hope that EURALO can act quickly enough to
>> agree to it, in time for it to be formally submitted. The issues raised are
>> *essential* to the ALAC's mission of being ICANN's conscience and I am very
>> pleased that they are dealt with in such a professional and concise manner
>> by ALAC.
>>
>> Erratum:
>>
>> - Under: "Whois requirements for new service"
>> We are surprised the only reference to privacy in the report in the
>> report is about privacy as a (paid for) service.
>>
>> -> we are surprised THAT the only reference...
>> -> note the repeat of "in the report"
>>
>> Next paragraph: replace "Further" with "Furthermore"
>>
>> Further discussion
>>
>> I attended a meeting of Internet experts under Chatham House Rules in
>> London last week and the matter came up for discussion.
>> The general concensus around the table was that ICANN was setting a
>> dangerous precedent in stepping into areas it should not step into re:
>> several issues. The issue of Copyright is an age-old issue which is
>> very complex and near intractable to deal with internationally. WIPO
>> is the agency specifically in charge of this, and its budget which is in
>> excess of 600 Million Swiss Francs is huge compared to the ICANN
>> budget for these matters. ICANN risks burdening itself by shifting
>> the Copyright battlefield into its own home, and risks wasting such
>> resources instead of following its real mission, as defined in the JPA
>> agreement. Expect to hear criticism re: that wrt post-JPA.
>>
>> My own comment is that I have a real concern re: capture. This process,
>> it seems, is being rushed through and might be a form of capture by a
>> community (namely IP lawyers) - and such capture is also being
>> suspected by others - and this will *not* play in ICANN's favour.
>> I am not sure if is would be politically correct for EURALO to raise the
>> "capture danger" flag. Perhaps it is completely outside the scope of EURALO.
>> Perhaps I am mistaken and see capture where there isn't, but I believe there
>> is no smoke without fire and the speed and manner in which the IRTP working
>> group has been set-up and is operating, including the limited amount of time
>> it is allowing for external comments, make me raise my eyebrows and feel
>> uncomfortable.
>>
>> Since I have no posting privilege on the ALAC-Internal list, please
>> feel free to forward where necessary/desired.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>> Ref: Chatham House Rule
>> http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/chathamhouserule/
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge-lists.ic...
>
> Working Group direct URL:
> https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy
>
_______________________________________________
GTLD-WG mailing list
GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge-lists.ic...
Working Group direct URL: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy
[GTLD-WG] Fw: [Euro-board] WG: [ALAC-Internal] Fwd: URGENT-ALA
This may be a very naive suggestion, but instead of a IP Clearinghouse
and GPML list being maintained as a separate process outside of the
proposed v2 of the gTLD Application Guidebook, have a category of gTLD
which trademark holders can apply for.
Call it a trademark/brand name gTLDs category. With this category of
gTLDs, applicants cannot operate a gTLD, but pay to ensure that the
gTLD is NOT introduced.
Such applicants would then go through the same process as applicants
for new gTLDs.
(the administrative completeness check, initial evaluation, objection
filing, extended evaluation, dispute resolution, etc).
Dev T
Trinidad and Tobago Computer Society
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> FYI - these are my comments that I sent to the Euro Board list.
> Reading through comments from others, it appears that it echoes some
> concerns in other constituencies.
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond"
> To: "Wolf Ludwig" ; "Patrick Vande Walle"
>
> Cc: "Euro Board"
> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 2:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [Euro-board] WG: Re: [ALAC-Internal] Fwd: Re:
> [GTLD-WG]URGENT-ALAC statement on IRTP report
>
>
>> Wolf:
>>
>> thank you for having forwarded Patrick's draft to the Euro list & to
>> here.
>>
>> I, as an individual EURALO board member, am in complete agreement with
>> this excellent draft, and also hope that if there is not enough time for
>> ALAC to approve it formally, I hope that EURALO can act quickly enough to
>> agree to it, in time for it to be formally submitted. The issues raised are
>> *essential* to the ALAC's mission of being ICANN's conscience and I am very
>> pleased that they are dealt with in such a professional and concise manner
>> by ALAC.
>>
>> Erratum:
>>
>> - Under: "Whois requirements for new service"
>> We are surprised the only reference to privacy in the report in the
>> report is about privacy as a (paid for) service.
>>
>> -> we are surprised THAT the only reference...
>> -> note the repeat of "in the report"
>>
>> Next paragraph: replace "Further" with "Furthermore"
>>
>> Further discussion
>>
>> I attended a meeting of Internet experts under Chatham House Rules in
>> London last week and the matter came up for discussion.
>> The general concensus around the table was that ICANN was setting a
>> dangerous precedent in stepping into areas it should not step into re:
>> several issues. The issue of Copyright is an age-old issue which is
>> very complex and near intractable to deal with internationally. WIPO
>> is the agency specifically in charge of this, and its budget which is in
>> excess of 600 Million Swiss Francs is huge compared to the ICANN
>> budget for these matters. ICANN risks burdening itself by shifting
>> the Copyright battlefield into its own home, and risks wasting such
>> resources instead of following its real mission, as defined in the JPA
>> agreement. Expect to hear criticism re: that wrt post-JPA.
>>
>> My own comment is that I have a real concern re: capture. This process,
>> it seems, is being rushed through and might be a form of capture by a
>> community (namely IP lawyers) - and such capture is also being
>> suspected by others - and this will *not* play in ICANN's favour.
>> I am not sure if is would be politically correct for EURALO to raise the
>> "capture danger" flag. Perhaps it is completely outside the scope of EURALO.
>> Perhaps I am mistaken and see capture where there isn't, but I believe there
>> is no smoke without fire and the speed and manner in which the IRTP working
>> group has been set-up and is operating, including the limited amount of time
>> it is allowing for external comments, make me raise my eyebrows and feel
>> uncomfortable.
>>
>> Since I have no posting privilege on the ALAC-Internal list, please
>> feel free to forward where necessary/desired.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>> Ref: Chatham House Rule
>> http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/chathamhouserule/
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge-lists.ic...
>
> Working Group direct URL:
> https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy
>
_______________________________________________
GTLD-WG mailing list
GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge-lists.ic...
Working Group direct URL: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy
[SPAM] [GTLD-WG] [Euro-board] WG: [ALAC-Internal] Fwd: URGENT
A kind soul has pointed the fact that I referred to "Copyrights" in my
message below.
Of course, I meant "Trade Marks" - my apologies. Since nobody's
pointed this out
earlier, I'm either in everybody's "ignore" file, or we should all
wake-up. :-)
O.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond"
To: "Wolf Ludwig" ; "Patrick Vande Walle"
Cc: "Euro Board"
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Euro-board] WG: Re: [ALAC-Internal] Fwd: Re:
[GTLD-WG]URGENT-ALAC statement on IRTP report
> Wolf:
>
> thank you for having forwarded Patrick's draft to the Euro list & to
> here.
>
> I, as an individual EURALO board member, am in complete agreement
> with this excellent draft, and also hope that if there is not enough
> time for ALAC to approve it formally, I hope that EURALO can act
> quickly enough to agree to it, in time for it to be formally
> submitted. The issues raised are *essential* to the ALAC's mission
> of being ICANN's conscience and I am very pleased that they are
> dealt with in such a professional and concise manner by ALAC.
>
> Erratum:
>
> - Under: "Whois requirements for new service"
> We are surprised the only reference to privacy in the report in the
> report is about privacy as a (paid for) service.
>
> -> we are surprised THAT the only reference...
> -> note the repeat of "in the report"
>
> Next paragraph: replace "Further" with "Furthermore"
>
> Further discussion
>
> I attended a meeting of Internet experts under Chatham House Rules
> in
> London last week and the matter came up for discussion.
> The general concensus around the table was that ICANN was setting a
> dangerous precedent in stepping into areas it should not step into
> re:
> several issues. The issue of Copyright is an age-old issue which is
> very complex and near intractable to deal with internationally. WIPO
> is the agency specifically in charge of this, and its budget which
> is in
> excess of 600 Million Swiss Francs is huge compared to the ICANN
> budget for these matters. ICANN risks burdening itself by shifting
> the Copyright battlefield into its own home, and risks wasting such
> resources instead of following its real mission, as defined in the
> JPA
> agreement. Expect to hear criticism re: that wrt post-JPA.
>
> My own comment is that I have a real concern re: capture. This
> process,
> it seems, is being rushed through and might be a form of capture by
> a
> community (namely IP lawyers) - and such capture is also being
> suspected by others - and this will *not* play in ICANN's favour.
> I am not sure if is would be politically correct for EURALO to raise
> the "capture danger" flag. Perhaps it is completely outside the
> scope of EURALO. Perhaps I am mistaken and see capture where there
> isn't, but I believe there is no smoke without fire and the speed
> and manner in which the IRTP working group has been set-up and is
> operating, including the limited amount of time it is allowing for
> external comments, make me raise my eyebrows and feel uncomfortable.
>
> Since I have no posting privilege on the ALAC-Internal list, please
> feel free to forward where necessary/desired.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> Ref: Chatham House Rule
> http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/chathamhouserule/
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wolf Ludwig"
> To: "Patrick Vande Walle"
> Cc: "Euro Board"
> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 10:48 PM
> Subject: [Euro-board] WG: Re: [ALAC-Internal] Fwd: Re: [GTLD-WG]
> URGENT-ALAC statement on IRTP report
>
>
>> Dear Patrick again,
>>
>> just in case, your draft statement on the IRTP report will NOT be
>> approved in time / until next Monday by ALAC, I suggest to submit
>> it
>> on behalf of EURALO at least. It would be sad if this/your
>> statement
>> wouldn't be approved and forwarded in time! Any comments by other
>> Board members?
>>
>> Best,
>> Wolf
>>
>>
>> Wolf Ludwig wrote Sat, 02 May 2009 22:37:
>>>Dear Patrick,
>>>
>>>thanks a lot for your draft of a (ALAC) statement on the IRTP
>>>report. Your draft actually reflects most of my concerns and I hope
>>>it will be approved by the ALAC, given the narrow deadline of May
>>>5th (what means next Tuesday!). Thanks again for your excellent
>>>work
>>>and
>>>
>>>kind regards,
>>>Wolf
>>>
>>>
>>>Patrick Vande Walle wrote Sat, 02 May 2009 21:38:
>>>>To follow up on the request made during last week's
>>>>teleconference, I
>>>>have drafted the following statement.
>>>>https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?draft_statements_related_to_irt_s_remit_from_at_large
>>>>
>>>>The discussions on the new gtld list focused mainly on the
>>>>composition
>>>>of the IRTP working group, its lack of balance and the fact that
>>>>most
>>>>members were from - or close to - the IPC. Several members of
>>>>At-Large
>>>>mentioned they volunteered for the WG, but were not included.
>>>>Hong had concerns regarding the fact that these proposed rules
>>>>were
>>>>in
>>>>contradiction with international trade mark law. Bret Faussett
>>>>made
>>>>a
>>>>comment about the fact the URS process is not limited in time. His
>>>>comment is included in extenso.
>>>>
>>>>The draft statement tries to capture all these remarks.
>>>>
>>>>I am not sure which process the chair wishes to follow to have
>>>>some
>>>>some
>>>>of approval from the ALAC, given the deadline is May 5th.
>>>>
>>>>Patrick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>ALAC-Internal mailing list
>>>>ALAC-Internal@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>
>>>>ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
>>>>At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>comunica-ch
>>>phone +41 79 204 83 87
>>>Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
>>>www.comunica-ch.net
>>>
>>>Digitale Allemd
>>>http://blog.allmend.ch -
>>>
>>>EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
>>>http://euralo.org
>>>
>>
>> comunica-ch
>> phone +41 79 204 83 87
>> Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
>> www.comunica-ch.net
>>
>> Digitale Allemd
>> http://blog.allmend.ch -
>>
>> EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
>> http://euralo.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Euro-board mailing list
>> Euro-board@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-board_atlarge-lists...
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Euro-board mailing list
> Euro-board@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-board_atlarge-lists...
>
_______________________________________________
GTLD-WG mailing list
GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge-lists.ic...
Working Group direct URL: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy
[GTLD-WG] [Euro-board] WG: [ALAC-Internal] Fwd: URGENT-ALAC st
Hello everyone,
I am sorry it took me so long to respond.
I have suggested some edits to Patrick's document on the Wiki. You are
welcome to use them or reject them, in which case simply revert back to
the last one Patrick did.
My changes were two-fold. In some cases I wanted to be more direct and
assertive ("must" instead of "should"). My largest changes are in the
preamble, in which I wanted to be more direct in noting the complete
lack of transparency in the IRTP process -- the summary rejection of
willing At-Large participants, the short reaction times, and the lack of
any participation by those to be affected. These are all points Patrick
made, I just wanted to make the statement sharper, that the entire
process by which the IRTP has operated is a reversal of ICANN's goals of
transparency and inclusiveness.
I also added what I believed to be some clarity to the comments about
the methods of takedown notices, without changing Patrick's intent. (For
instance, I think that "expiry" has a more definite meaning --
especially to the lawyers -- than "sunset").
Patrick's original (Version 7):
https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?action=revision_view;page_na...
My edits (Version 8):
https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?action=revision_view;page_na...
Side-by-side comparison:
https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?action=revision_compare&page...
I hope my edits are acceptable to Patrick and the rest of the WG. If not
and the preference is for the original, that's OK too. I just hope I've
been able to help.
By the way.... is there are reason why this statement is on the GNSO
section of the website and not ALAC's?
- Evan
_______________________________________________
GTLD-WG mailing list
GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge-lists.ic...
Working Group direct URL: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy
[SPAM] [GTLD-WG] [Euro-board] WG: [ALAC-Internal] Fwd: URGENT
Evan,
I have found the side by side comparison very helpful - thank you.
Clearly, both your version and Patrick's version are similar in
essence. The interesting thing I am noticing is the cultural
difference playing here: whereas Europeans are softer and more
diplomatic in their approach, North Americans are sharper and, should
I say, more agressive in tone.
Both approaches have much merit. My prefernece would lean towards the
more agressive tone, an appreciation probably triggered by a mix of
anglo-saxon & gallic attitudes. :-)
It would be good to hear from others, especially those who have much
experience in ICANN diplomacy. The comment period end on the 6th May
but futher comments can be left until 24th May (although we really
need this thing out by the 6th).
REMINDER: *** This is a vital point relating to the Camel's Nose ***
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel%27s_nose
Regards,
O.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Evan Leibovitch"
To: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond"
Cc: ; "Euro Board"
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [Euro-board] WG: Re: [ALAC-Internal] Fwd: Re:
URGENT-ALAC statement on IRTP report
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I am sorry it took me so long to respond.
>
> I have suggested some edits to Patrick's document on the Wiki. You
> are
> welcome to use them or reject them, in which case simply revert back
> to
> the last one Patrick did.
>
> My changes were two-fold. In some cases I wanted to be more direct
> and
> assertive ("must" instead of "should"). My largest changes are in
> the
> preamble, in which I wanted to be more direct in noting the complete
> lack of transparency in the IRTP process -- the summary rejection of
> willing At-Large participants, the short reaction times, and the
> lack of
> any participation by those to be affected. These are all points
> Patrick
> made, I just wanted to make the statement sharper, that the entire
> process by which the IRTP has operated is a reversal of ICANN's
> goals of
> transparency and inclusiveness.
>
> I also added what I believed to be some clarity to the comments
> about
> the methods of takedown notices, without changing Patrick's intent.
> (For
> instance, I think that "expiry" has a more definite meaning --
> especially to the lawyers -- than "sunset").
>
>
> Patrick's original (Version 7):
> https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?action=revision_view;page_na...
>
> My edits (Version 8):
> https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?action=revision_view;page_na...
>
> Side-by-side comparison:
> https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?action=revision_compare&page...
>
> I hope my edits are acceptable to Patrick and the rest of the WG. If
> not
> and the preference is for the original, that's OK too. I just hope
> I've
> been able to help.
>
> By the way.... is there are reason why this statement is on the GNSO
> section of the website and not ALAC's?
>
> - Evan
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
GTLD-WG mailing list
GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge-lists.ic...
Working Group direct URL: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy
[GTLD-WG] [Euro-board] WG: [ALAC-Internal] Fwd: URGENT-ALAC st
Olivier wrote:
> Clearly, both your version and Patrick's version are similar in
> essence. The interesting thing I am noticing is the cultural
> difference playing here: whereas Europeans are softer and more
> diplomatic in their approach, North Americans are sharper and, should
> I say, more agressive in tone.
While I appreciate the comments... I have a difficult time representing
my household, much less my continent. :-)
Please be aware that my comments in that document are my own only and
were not done in consultation with my RALO or ALS.
> Both approaches have much merit. My prefernece would lean towards the
> more agressive tone, an appreciation probably triggered by a mix of
> anglo-saxon & gallic attitudes. :-)
I simply note that the text in many documents prepared by other
constituencies -- and certainly the IRTP -- are more assertive than
diplomatic in tone. I suppose that the style I used simply reflects an
observation that we sometimes need to make special effort just to be
heard amongst the various governments and financially-driven
constituencies. As a result, we need to use stronger language so that we
do not get brushed aside. Kurt Pritz's response to both myself and Rudy
at the gTLD briefing in Mexico is a good example of what we need to
confront -- those who work against the public interest appear to have
little interest in diplomacy unless it is forced upon them.
> It would be good to hear from others, especially those who have much
> experience in ICANN diplomacy. The comment period end on the 6th May
> but futher comments can be left until 24th May (although we really
> need this thing out by the 6th).
> REMINDER: *** This is a vital point relating to the Camel's Nose ***
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel%27s_nose
I agree completely.
- Evan
_______________________________________________
GTLD-WG mailing list
GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge-lists.ic...
Working Group direct URL: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy
[GTLD-WG] [Euro-board] WG: [ALAC-Internal] Fwd: URGENT-ALAC st
For some reason, my mail server blacklisted the at-large mailing lists for
a few hours. Hence, my late reply.
This being said, I am OK with Evan's suggested language. I guess my
diplomatic tone is a consequence of spending 15 years in the civil service
:-).
Patrick
On Tue, 05 May 2009 18:06:46 -0400, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> Olivier wrote:
>
>> Clearly, both your version and Patrick's version are similar in
>> essence. The interesting thing I am noticing is the cultural
>> difference playing here: whereas Europeans are softer and more
>> diplomatic in their approach, North Americans are sharper and, should
>> I say, more agressive in tone.
> While I appreciate the comments... I have a difficult time representing
> my household, much less my continent. :-)
>
> Please be aware that my comments in that document are my own only and
> were not done in consultation with my RALO or ALS.
>
>
>> Both approaches have much merit. My prefernece would lean towards the
>> more agressive tone, an appreciation probably triggered by a mix of
>> anglo-saxon & gallic attitudes. :-)
>
> I simply note that the text in many documents prepared by other
> constituencies -- and certainly the IRTP -- are more assertive than
> diplomatic in tone. I suppose that the style I used simply reflects an
> observation that we sometimes need to make special effort just to be
> heard amongst the various governments and financially-driven
> constituencies. As a result, we need to use stronger language so that we
> do not get brushed aside. Kurt Pritz's response to both myself and Rudy
> at the gTLD briefing in Mexico is a good example of what we need to
> confront -- those who work against the public interest appear to have
> little interest in diplomacy unless it is forced upon them.
>
>> It would be good to hear from others, especially those who have much
>> experience in ICANN diplomacy. The comment period end on the 6th May
>> but futher comments can be left until 24th May (although we really
>> need this thing out by the 6th).
>> REMINDER: *** This is a vital point relating to the Camel's Nose ***
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel%27s_nose
> I agree completely.
>
> - Evan
>
> _______________________________________________
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge-lists.ic...
>
> Working Group direct URL:
> https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy
--
Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/patrickvw
Identica: http://identi.ca/patrickv
_______________________________________________
GTLD-WG mailing list
GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge-lists.ic...
Working Group direct URL: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy