<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Fwd: Uniform Rapid Suspension Discussion
Thank-you both Stéphane & John.
That’s helpful.
Jonathan
From: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 01 October 2012 16:14
To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder; Jonathan Robinson
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: Uniform Rapid Suspension Discussion
Stephane,
I am in agreement with you.
It is neither realistic nor necessary for there to be a Council statement as
long as we "work with our respective groups."
Cheers,
John Berard
Founder
Credible Context
58 West Portal Avenue, #291
San Francisco, CA 94127
m: 415.845.4388
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: Uniform Rapid Suspension Discussion
From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, October 01, 2012 8:04 am
To: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Councillors,
FYI I have not engaged with Olof directly to ascertain what has led him to
believe that the Council could put together a statement in this short space of
time, on something that has taken months of previous GNSO work to put
together.So I do not know if it is realistic to expect the Council to submit
statements.
We have, over the past weeks, seen some pointed questions for Staff from
Councillors on the latest implementation plans for the URS. Kurt has given some
responses and I understand that the Toronto session Olof refers to is also part
of Staff's work to get a complete picture of the situation and ensure a proper
way forward is found.
This is one of the outcomes we had in mind when URS was put on our weekend
agenda, and Wolf and Glen are working with Kurt to organize that session. I
think Kurt's proposed approach to have the output of the Toronto meetings
inform further GNSO discussions is useful, and would encourage us all to work
with our respective groups to ensure that the Council does feed those
discussions.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 1 oct. 2012 à 16:47, Jonathan Robinson a écrit :
Thanks Stéphane,
I can confirm that the Registries SG has now received a related request from
ICANN (Olof Nordling) looking for input and agenda items.
In our case, we (the GNSO) are being asked for a presentation or statement on
the way forward for URS work.
It seems that Olof is looking for something at the Monday meeting.
As far as I can see this topic (URS) only comes up on the weekend as part of
our composite new gTLD session with the Kurt on Sunday morning.
So, we may need to schedule some dedicated time to deal with this or set Olof’s
expectations that a statement is unlikely.
I’d be interested to hear from others as to whether or not it’s realistic to
provide GNSO Council agreed input at the Monday meeting?
Jonathan
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: 29 September 2012 13:14
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx List
Subject: [council] Fwd: Uniform Rapid Suspension Discussion
Councillors, FYI.
Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM NetNames France
----------------
Registry Relations and Strategy Director
NetNames
T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51
F: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61
Début du message réexpédié :
De : Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
Objet : RE: Uniform Rapid Suspension Discussion
Date : 28 septembre 2012 18:08:48 HAEC
À : 'Stéphane Van Gelder' (stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx)
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc : Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz@xxxxxxxxx>, Karen Lentz <karen.lentz@xxxxxxxxx>,
Amy Stathos <amy.stathos@xxxxxxxxx>
Dear Stéphane,
Kurt forwarded me your kind reply to his mail below, and I would like to
follow-up with some updates and a specific question. As you may have noted, the
first upcoming sessions on URS are a webinar on 3 October
(seehttp://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-6-24sep12-en.htm )
and a session in Toronto on 18 October (see
http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34325), where we will further discuss the
solution suggestions brought up by the community in Prague and pursue the
objectives stated in Kurt’s mail. The ambition is to find an agreed way to
analyze each suggestion in detail and reach balanced conclusions, for example
by establishing a suitably balanced drafting team for that purpose.
Now to my question, as you mention that the Council may follow-up on Kurt’s
message in a near future: Could we count on a presentation or statement at the
URS session in Toronto to provide GNSO Council guidance on the best way forward
for the continued URS work?
I hope this is possible and look forward to your response.
On another note: I also intend to contact the GNSO SGs/Constituencies
individually as their contributions to the discussions in substance are
essential. In addition, your help in spreading the word to them would be much
appreciated. Proposals for the Toronto session as to speakers and topics are
warmly welcome, as well as written input.
Very best regards
Olof
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Kurt <kurt.pritz@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Uniform Rapid Suspension Discussion
Thanks Kurt. I am copying the Council for their information.
The Council will no doubt follow-up on this in the near future.
Best,
Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM NetNames France
----------------
Registry Relations and Strategy Director
NetNames
T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51
F: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61
Le 18 sept. 2012 à 22:09, Kurt Pritz a écrit :
Hi Stephane:
I am writing to let you know that we are planning a set of discussions on
Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) implementation in the near future and seek the
input of GNSO leadership. As you know, a meeting in Prague we indicated that
URS, as currently designed, did not appear to meet cost requirements. In
Prague, contributors in the meeting described briefly several potential
solutions. In the next set of meetings, we want to flesh out some of those
models for possible implementation.We want to have one meeting in about two
weeks (probably a webinar type of format with a possibility for some
face-to-face interaction), and then we have a meeting in Toronto is scheduled.
The first meeting will be announced shortly.
I am writing you because some of the proposed solutions, while feasible, do not
match up with the specific conclusions of the STI team when it did its work. We
recognize the role of the GNSO in those discussions. While the meetings we are
having are open to all, we understand that the GNSO leadership might want to
conduct the URS discussions in a certain way. Having the twin goals of
developing a solution in time for use by new gTLDs and ensuring that all those
interested can participate in the discussion, we can work in whichever way the
GNSO wishes to proceed. (Of course, we also seek to meet the cost and
timeliness goals for which the the URS was designed and also seek to ensure
that registrants enjoy the protections written into the current model by the
IRT and STI.)The output of the next meetings can inform GNSO discussion or we
can carry on in a way acceptable to the GNSO.
I am also copying Olivier as ALAC members participated in the STI.
I hope you find this helpful. Contact me anytime with questions.
Regards,
Kurt
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|