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

["Berry Cobb" <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi All,

The update to the Reserved List for IGO Names and Acronyms, as a function of
Specification 5, occurred in response to the NGPC Resolution on 2 July 2013,
(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-02jul13
-en.htm) on the basis of the NGPC responding to the GAC's advice.  The NGPC
also passed another resolution to extend these temporary protections until
the BA meeting in November
(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-17jul13
-en.htm).

These events are documented in the Background section of the draft Final
Report.

B

Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
720.839.5735
mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
@berrycobb


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mason Cole
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 09:06
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Mary Wong; Avri Doria; jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'GNSO IGO INGO'
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] why are we doing this?


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/Res
>>> e
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>