Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] viability of the charter for this group

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

My question is what do we do.  I had no recommendation, other then to figure 
out what we need to do.

I think it is important to review these decisions and understand whether they 
place any requirements or constraints on our work.  Are we free to decide at 
the end of the day that the previous PDP based GNSO recommendations against 
adding to the reserved name list were indeed correct.

Are we free to consider how to have a single reserved name list that also 
constrains existing registrations?  The board seems to declare that nothing can 
be done about existing registrations.  Is that true?  Our charter seemed to 
indicate we could decide/recommend otherwise, though we would need to figure 
out how to transition to that state.

Or has the Board constrained the question so that there need to be two reserved 
lists, one for incumbent TLDs and one for new gTLDs?

While it is, of course in the Board's prerogative to make whatever decision 
they wish, a right they take with impunity more and more these days.  What I 
think we need to understand is whether it constrains out work in any way.

avri





On 29 Nov 2012, at 12:30, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:

> 
> Hi Avri
> 
> what is your proposal? Continue? Ignore? Rethink? Boycott?
> 
> The weak point is that we do not have established procedures for the 
> interaction between the Board and the GNSO/GNSO Council. Whatever GNSO is 
> doing the Board is free to accept it or to reject it. Should the Board be 
> obliged to explain to the public when it ignores a "GNSO advice"? 
> 
> wolfgang   
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx im Auftrag von Avri Doria
> Gesendet: Do 29.11.2012 05:59
> An: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
> Betreff: [gnso-igo-ingo] viability of the charter for this group
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Now that the Board has trumped the actions of this group with a resolution 
> (2012.11.26.NG03) that I consider, at best, premature and at worst a slap in 
> the face to all who work on PDPs, I wonder, how does this affect our charter 
> and work program?  The reason I beleive this is such a slap as it took a 
> different approach with regard to IOC/RC that it did with IGOs 
> (2012.11.26.NG01,2)
> 
> For example, can we still recommend that one or both of those who have been 
> elevated beyond all others and have been granted special protections, can 
> have those protections removed by consensus of this PDP?
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> 
>