RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Reactions to first meeting

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

It might make sense, but I cannot see us coming 
to closure on it in the 31 Jan time-frame. Even 
with all of the arguments and documents regarding 
the "special situation" of the RCRC and IOC, it 
was difficult to get a DT consensus (or even 
strong belief) that the interim protections were 
the right thing to do. I sense that for the 
larger (and currently VERY undefined) superset of 
IGOs, there is no way that we could come to closure.
This is one of those times when I think that it 
would be quite reasonable that, IF the GNSO 
agrees to the interim RCRC/IOC protection (or if 
the Board acts similarly in lieu of a GNSO 
recommendation), and IF the GAC comes up with the 
definitive (and finite) list of IGOs to be 
considered, that if the Board feels the names 
should be reserved pending the PDP, it should take such action itself.
Somewhere along the way, we need to sit down and 
try to document all of these "surprise last 
minute decisions" we have had to make, and try to 
understand why they came about. Lack of early 
insight? Pigheadedness? Ostriche 
head-in-the-sand? Loudest-shouter-wins? Probably 
a bit of all of the above, but there are surely 
lessons we can learn about our multi-stakeholder 
model that has not served us as well as it should have.
Alan

At 02/11/2012 05:02 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Thanks Alan for continuing the dialog with some 
> good points.  With regard to the 31 Jan 2013 
> Board motion deadline, I note that it only 
> relates to the IOC & RC names, not the IGO 
> names, so it literally does not apply to the IGO 
> names.  But, if we recommend interim protection 
> for IOC & RC names in case the PDP doesn’t 
> finish in time, would it also make sense to 
> consider the something similar for other names?
> Chuck