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

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,
we started a discussion on this during yesterday's call, but wanted to obtain 
more information, such as the rationale, before we proceed. 
Your question is most relevant and we all need to consider the consequences and 
a strategy. I also recommend reading this:

http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/releases/release-28nov12-en.pdf 


All, please provide feedback and suggestions on the list.

Thanks,
Thomas


Am 29.11.2012 um 10:11 schrieb 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

___________________________________________________________
Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt
Schollmeyer &  Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm)
Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert
HRB 9262, AG Bonn

Büro / Office Bonn:
Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0

Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.:
Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56

Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66

mailto: rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx
skype-id: trickert
web: www.anwaelte.de