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

[Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Mary --

Can you please explain why this list exists now without the outcome of the WG's 
efforts?

Mason

On Sep 19, 2013, at 9:00 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 
> I meant to say that I was NOT in doubt that they knew about it.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 9:37 AM
> To: Mary Wong; Avri Doria; jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: 'GNSO IGO INGO'
> Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] why are we doing this?
> 
> 
> Mary,
> 
> I was in doubt that they knew about it. But understanding that makes it even 
> more surprising that in their communications they have mostly ignored the PDP.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 9:22 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: 'GNSO IGO INGO'
> Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] why are we doing this?
> 
> Hi Avri, Chuck and everyone,
> 
> I certainly can't speak for the NGPC but I can assure you that they know 
> about the work of this WG; perhaps this discussion further highlights the 
> importance of getting these recommendations finalized and published as soon 
> as possible, to enable discussions with Board members, the GAC and other 
> community participants prior to and in Buenos Aires.
> 
> 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: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thursday, September 19, 2013 9:07 AM
> To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, "jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx"
> <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: 'GNSO IGO INGO' <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: 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/Rese
>>> r
>>> vedNam
>>> es.xml
>>> 
>>> Can somebody explain why we are bothering to figure out the minutia 
>>> of our consensus levels.
>>> 
>>> Does it really matter?
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>