RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda: IGO-INGO Meeting for 13 FEB 2013

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Note that the Board already made a 'preemptory decision on further 
protections'; in fact they are contained in the recently posted revised New 
gTLD Registry Agreement.  Note that there are certain IOC/RC and IGO names are 
"initially" reserved.  Also, the GNSO Council approved a motion to temporarily 
reserve IOC/RC names until the PDP is done.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-
> ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:47 AM
> To: Avri Doria
> Cc: GNSO IGO INGO
> Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda: IGO-INGO Meeting for 13
> FEB 2013
> 
> 
> Hello Avri,
> we can surely add the point to the agenda. I would have touched upon it
> anyway, but thank for reminding me that this could be formally on the
> agenda.
> 
> Thanks,
> Thomas
> 
> 
> Am 13.02.2013 um 14:24 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>:
> 
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have one comment about the agenda.
> >
> > As I understand it, the issue of Special Protections is on the GNSO
> agenda this week.  This is the last GNSO meeting before the Board's
> deadline for a response on these protections.
> >
> > Does this WG have any input for the GNSO.
> >
> > I think we should ask the Board's indulgence for us to complete the
> work and request that they not make yet another preemptory decision on
> further protections.  While any applicants are still striving to get
> into the root ASAP, it si obvious that it is not yet the last minute
> and the Board has time.  the Board does not need to make any emergency
> decisions about reserved names until just before it decides to approve
> a new gTLD.  And it is not on the precipice of such a decision.
> >
> > I recommend we ask them not to create any further expectations of
> entitlement as they did for RCRC and IOC.  I recommend we ask them to
> give the policy process the time it needs to do the work.  If they need
> an emergency provision before approving the first new gTLD so be it.
> But it is not yet that time.
> >
> > This recommendation is consistent with NCSG positions on the Rule of
> PDP, the issue of the Board's tendency to go outside of the PDP based
> on outside pressures and out position on the creation of new reserved
> name policy privilege.
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> > On 12 Feb 2013, at 14:53, Berry Cobb wrote:
> >
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> Please find below the proposed agenda for the next IGO-INGO PDP
> Working Group meeting.
> >>
> >>
> >> Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO WG Meeting - 13 FEB 2013 @ 19:00 UTC (120
> Min):
> >> 1. Roll Call / SOI Update
> >> 2. Status of General Council Request
> >> 3. Review of SG&C Input from NCSG
> >> 4. NOTP- Harm Evaluation Discussion & Next Steps
> >> - Domain Registration evaluation
> >> - Survey contents and scope of participants 5. Further Define
> >> potential protection mechanisms 6. Review IGO-INGO Work Plan /
> >> Beijing Face-to-face Session??
> >> 7. Next steps & confirm next meeting (20 FEB 2013 @ 17:00 UTC (120
> >> MIN))
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you.  B
> >>
> >> Berry Cobb
> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> >> 720.839.5735
> >> mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> @berrycobb
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
>