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

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Colleagues,
in preparation of the next call, let me thank you again for the vivid 
discussion regarding the charter. As time is of essence, I suggest we do not 
discuss this during the call tomorrow because:

1) Both resolutions on the RCRC/IOC and IGO names clearly state that the
special protections for these names are an interim solution, pending the
final results/recommendations of the PDP and so, the WG needs to complete
the PDP in as expeditious manner as soon as possible.

2) The GAC letter is a matter for the GNSO Council to respond to and not
this WG - until the WG hears otherwise from the Council that it's objectives
have changed, the WG needs to continue its work on this PDP as mandated by
the Council.

As you can see from it's public mailing list, the Council is discussing this 
very subject at the moment. I will update the group on developments and we 
might pick this up at a later stage. Hence, I suggest we focus on our mandate 
and try to be as efficient as we can in delivering results in a timely manner.

Thanks and regards,
Thomas

Am 29.11.2012 um 17:36 schrieb "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> 
> Now that I have read the exact motions that were passed in addition to the 
> previously posted communication, I am not as concerned as when I first heard 
> of the new gTLD Committee actions.  In my first reaction, the actions seemed 
> to undermine the GNSO policy efforts and possibly the GNSO itself, but I 
> think that was on overreaction.  It is true that that the actions were 
> premature at least in the case of the IOC/RC but maybe not regarding the IGOs 
> because it is not clear that the WG would have dealt with these quickly 
> enough to recommend a temporary moratorium.
> 
> Personally, I do not see anything in the motions that changes the tasks of 
> our working group. And as I have said before, the fact that temporary 
> reservations have been put in place if needed should not predispose any 
> recommendations that we decide to make.
> 
> Chuck
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-
>> ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:59 PM
>> To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [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, Attorney at Law
Director Names & Numbers

-------------------------------------
eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V.

Lichtstraße 43h
50825 Köln

Fon:    +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 0
Fax:    +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 111
E-Mail: thomas.rickert@xxxxxx
Web:    http://www.eco.de

---------------------------------------------------

eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V.
Geschäftsführer: Harald A. Summa
Vorstand: Prof. Michael Rotert (Vorsitzender), Oliver Süme (stv.
Vorsitzender), Klaus Landefeld, Thomas von Bülow, Felix Höger
Vereinsregister: Amtsgericht Köln, VR 14478
Sitz des Vereins: Köln