Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Summing up Option 7

[Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Konstantinos,

I don't think that the reference to URS is in 
line with the wording that you propose (restrict 
applicability to first round and mandatory review).
The recommendation for the URS was "ICANN will 
conduct a review of the URS one year after the 
first date of operation. There is no requirement 
that the URS should automatically expire or 
terminate after any set period of time. ICANN 
will publish examination statistics for use in the review of the URS."
That is equivalent to saying the IOC/RC 
protection will be for all future rounds unless 
the (mandatory) review says otherwise.
The differences are substantive:

- In the URS case, it explicitly says that the 
URS as proposed will continue and not have a 
pre-determined end-date (obviously unless it is 
later explicitly terminated or changed). If for 
whatever reason, the review is not done as 
required (such slippages are not unheard of in 
ICANN, we would not be back at this point (ie a 
last minute crisis to satisfy the GAC) again for round 2.
- There will be data on which to base a 
re-evaluation. It is not clear (to me in any 
case) that there will be sufficient public data 
for the GNSO to do an evaluation.
- In the case of the URS, it is pretty certain 
that the process will exercised within a year (or 
at least, that was the expectation). In our case, 
it is not at all certain that there will be cases 
to evaluate, even if we do get data.
My preference is to review IF the perception at 
the time is that it is required, based on the 
other issues that will also inevitably need to be 
adjusted and their perceived relative importance. 
To do otherwise seems like a make-work activity that I have little taste for.
I can live with a requirement for a review as 
long as its delay does not trigger holding this 
exact WG all over again, perhaps with no more 
data or insight. Moreover, it is imperative that 
we be sure that if the GNSO is to do a review, 
the GNSO will have sufficient access to records 
to allow it to do it based on facts and not 
rumour. And preferably only done if there are cases to review.
Alan


At 16/02/2012 09:35 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:
> Thanks for this Chuck – think it is really helpful.
>
> I have made a couple of tweaks, specifically:
>
> I have deleted under b) the Reserved name phrase 
> because the way it was written it sounded as if 
> these names were given a double status: they 
> could be regarded as either a ‘Reserved name# or 
> a ‘modified reserved name’ – I think we for the 
> purposes of option 7 we were regarding them as ‘modified reserved names’
> I also have incorporated a small sentence on 
> what additional rights an applicant may have in order to apply for the string.
> On a general note: I would insist that we make 
> review of these recommendations mandatory. There 
> is a pretty good precedent for that, re the URS 
> where there is a provision that we should review 
> the URS a year after its operation. In my mind, 
> considering that this recommendations seek to 
> reflect international statutes and conventions, 
> it is of paramount important that we make sure 
> they are open for a review to establish their legitimacy and appropriateness.
> Thanks
>
> Konstantinos