Dear Milton,

Thanks for this. Just briefly a couple of comments on Jeff¹s response.
The statement I read is along the same lines as Kathy¹s (you may compare
them) and that was done intentionally since it was meant to be representing
NCUC¹s views. What Jeff needs to understand is that the people who were
participating in the meeting were not in NY and thus never heard Kathy¹s
statement. This is the position of the NCUC team and if I was able to go to
Hong Kong and Abu Dhabi, I would have repeated exactly the same thing.
The line of speakers was not that big behind me and that does not explain an
interruption (even if they were a hundred). This is an open consultation and
everyone has the right to speak (free speech if it still means anything).
There were a lot of speakers that repeated the same thing or even saying
irrelevant things; why didn¹t Jeff interrupted them. Would a 2-3 minute
statement cost that much to the IRT?
As for the discussion on the IP Clearinghouse, what Jeff is saying is
correct only (and for this I am almost certain) I had this discussion with
Fabricio (who actually was the only one to invite us to a discussion because
as he said some things might have been misunderstood by both sides) and not
Jeff. I don¹t think I interacted with him after interrupting me.
This was definitely not a personal attack. But, for me it was an effort not
to have our concerns being addressed in London, in fear of explosive
reactions like in NY.

Konstantinos


On 16/07/2009 18:11, "Milton L Mueller" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  
> This is Jeff Neuman's response. although there are obviously disagreements, I
> think it's good to engage in dialogue.
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/>
>  
> 
> 
> From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 1:02 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller; [log in to unmask]; Richard Tindal
> Cc: Neuman, Jeff
> Subject: RE: IRT meeting London
> 
> Thanks Milton for forwarding this on to me.   Milton, I am not on the NCUC
> list, so can you please forward this to me.  This is my personal view only and
> not necessarily the view of my company or the IRT.
>  
> It seems like there may have been a misunderstanding and I would be happy to
> explain from my point of view what happened.
>  
> When Konstantinos got up to the mike, there was a very long line of potential
> speakers behind him.  He began reading from a pre-prepared statement
> criticizing the IRT and its report without pausing to give anyone an
> opportunity to address any of the issues point by point.  This in my mind
> demonstrated a lack on Konstantinos¹ part of wanting to engage in a dialogue,
> but rather just get his statement out there.  After reading the first couple
> of sentences, and after I believe Nick Wood, the moderator, asked Konstantinos
> a question about his comments, I did interject.  I merely asked Konstantinos
> if he was reading the exact same statement that Kathy read into the record in
> NY.  Konstantinos nodded yes.  At that point, I did not ask him to speed up or
> stop talking, but rather asked if he could summarize the points, rather than
> reading the long pre-prepared statement.   This would not only cut down the
> time of the statement (to ensure everyone got their opportunity to speak), but
> allow us to ask questions, which we did.
>  
> Konstantinos also neglected to include in his report back that I too engaged
> him in a dialogue about the notion of multiple clearinghouses.  In fact, I
> explained exactly the rationale which the IRT used in its report and why on
> balance we did not recommend having multiple clearinghouses for the first
> round of TLDs.  I explained to Konstantinos that since registries would have
> to technically interact with all clearinghouses, a new protocol may have to be
> developed to allow for that exchange of information from multiple providers.
> After all, a brand owner would only go to one clearinghouse, but the registry
> would have to interact with them all (after first figuring out which
> clearinghouse contained the data that the brand owner used).  So, in essence,
> the registry would have to get registration data from a registrar and either
> collect additional information as to which clearinghouse a brand owner used or
> do a look up to get that information.  In either case, this may be doing
> something that is not currently provided for the EPP protocol.  It would
> require either an update to EPP or the development of such a new protocol.
> From my perspective, this  would not only take a long time, but would also
> have to go through a technical standards process review.  The IRT believed
> that this would inevitably delay the new TLD process (something that the NCUC
> does not want to see, at least according to its public statements).
> Konstantinos nodded as if to understand and asked why we did not make that
> more clear in the report (which I believe is a valid point).  We could have
> made this more clear.
>  
> While I am commenting on the note below, let me also make the following points
> (which you can all hear by listening to the recording):
>  
> 1.        I do not believe the IRT toned down its presentation at all.  It was
> mostly a different panel, with persons

-- 
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
Lecturer in Law,
GigaNet Membership Chair,
University of Strathclyde,
The Lord Hope Building,
141 St. James Road,
Glasgow, G4 0LT,
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
email: [log in to unmask]