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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

sorry I missed the meeting due to WTSA.  I will listen to the recording so I 
can catch up.

avri

On 29 Nov 2012, at 13:31, Thomas Rickert wrote:

> 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
>