Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] why are we doing this?
- To: <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] why are we doing this?
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 07:40:14 -0400
What does it mean for names to be on the reserved list temporarily. Can we not
add and remove names from the reserved list at will before any PDP? and there
is nothing about this that indicates it is a temporary measure. Even the
communications of of the Board indicate that the negotiations on Reserved names
are between the GAC and the Board - any mention of the PDP process that is
The list of names, e.g, includes acronyms, but the nearly complete PDP
indicates that acronyms are not to be supported. Was this taken in account?
And finally, assuming we acept this, which is really something we have no
choice in, are they now going to take the liberty of removing and adjusting the
Reserved names list whenever they, and the GAC, decide it is necessary without
bothering with any of the processes that are the responsibility of the GNSO and
its council? Accepting such actions without formal protest by this WG and
especially by the GNSO Council is acquiescence to the curtailment of GNSO's
role at ICANN.
I feel this is an insidious trend that must be protested. It can't be allowed
to go on with those of us working hard for compromise sitting meekly by.
On 19 Sep 2013, at 07:18, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
> Hi Avri,
> Please explain more?
> As I understand it, these names are on the reserved list pending the outcome
> of the policy process.
> You may view the likelihood of these coming off the reserved list as
> unlikely regardless of the PDP process. Is that your concern?
> Also, what, if anything, was added to the list of temporary protections most
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 19 September 2013 04:58
> To: GNSO IGO INGO (gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx)
> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] why are we doing this?
> Given the complete disregard the Board and Sr Staff have for GNSO PRP
> processes as demonstrated in:
> Can somebody explain why we are bothering to figure out the minutia of our
> consensus levels.
> Does it really matter?