Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] why are we doing this?

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for the update.

Does this mean they will then correct the list to remove the extra names and 
add the INGO names?

If indeed the NGPC was waiting for our report and figuring to include that in 
their considerations, why was it not mentioned in their meeting report.  I know 
this is one of the questions to which there is probably no answer a staff 
member can give, though perhaps it can be passed to the Powers that Be who 
could answer it

avri

On 19 Sep 2013, at 08:38, Mary Wong wrote:

> Hello everyone,
> 
> Staff understanding is that the list Avri mentions is the list of the
> actual DNS labels that directly correspond to the list of IGO names and
> acronyms that the Board had agreed to protect on a temporary basis, per
> its June resolution:
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-02jul13
> -en.htm#1.b.
> 
> The Board's New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) is definitely aware that
> this WG is about to finalize its recommendations. Staff plans to formally
> send the finalized recommendations to the NGPC immediately upon their
> publication for public comment, either today or tomorrow (per the WG
> discussion yesterday).
> 
> I hope this is helpful.
> 
> Cheers
> Mary   
> 
> 
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> * One World. One Internet. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Thursday, September 19, 2013 7:40 AM
> To: "jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: 'GNSO IGO INGO' <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] why are we doing this?
> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> 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 nearly complete?
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>>> recently?
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Jonathan
>>> 
>>> -----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?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Given the complete disregard the Board and Sr Staff have for GNSO PRP
>>> processes as demonstrated in:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/reserved-names/Reserved
>>> Nam
>>> es.xml
>>> 
>>> Can somebody explain why we are bothering to figure out the minutia of
>>> our
>>> consensus levels.
>>> 
>>> Does it really matter?
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>