RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] why are we doing this?
I certainly agree that this is 'an insidious trend'. I was amazed that they mostly ignored the GNSO and the WG. It is almost as if they have written the GNSO off. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 7:40 AM To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: 'GNSO IGO INGO' 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/Reser > vedNam > es.xml > > Can somebody explain why we are bothering to figure out the minutia of > our consensus levels. > > Does it really matter? > > avri > > >