[gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC / RC Working Group Progress

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

Kurt and ICANN staff,

As the chair of this group, let me state that I am disappointed that this 
advice is coming to the group just one day before our meeting with the GAC to 
discuss their proposal and a week before the ICANN meeting.  ICANN staff has 
been in the loop since we opened this group up at the end of last year and 
could have used any one of those opportunities to let us know that a 30-day 
public comment period would be required by the Board (irrespective of whatever 
the results were).   I have made it a point as the Chair to have calls with 
ICANN policy staff to make sure that they knew the timelines involved and what 
the projected path going forward was.  No one on staff can actually say that 
this proposal and wanting action at this meeting was a surprise.

************************

As an individual (and not as the chair), I have some additional comments below.


Just to add on to chuck's concerns, and this overlaps some with his e-mail.  
Here are some of my initial questions.



1.       Before the Board passed its resolution on the Olympic and Red Cross 
names, was there are public comment period on that particular subject?  I do 
not believe there was one.  But that resolution was itself a divergence from 
the GNSO Reserved Names Working Group.   Unless I am missing something, that 
says that the Board can deviate from GNSO Policy without a public comment 
period, but a response to the Board/Staff's action must go through one.



2.       In the Drafting Team we have asked ICANN staff to provide the 
rationale for the original resolution and implementation of that resolution 
since November 2011, but none was ever delivered to the Drafting Team.  So, 
while we appreciate the fact that you would like a more in depth explanation of 
our rationale, which we will do our best to provide, we have been asking ICANN 
staff for that very same explanation of rationale for the Singapore motion as 
well as the Staff implementation in the Guidebook.



3.        The Drafting Team's proposal at the top level we do not believe 
changes or modifies an "approved policy".  What we are discussing is modifying 
at the top-level the ICANN staff's implementation of the Board Resolution in 
Singapore which itself was not subject to a public comment period.  We believe 
Staff's implementation in the Guidebook was significantly flawed and have by 
our proposal sought to fix the deficiencies.  So while we appreciate the role 
of public comment periods, I am not sure it is appropriate to cite the GNSO 
practice of having public comment periods when changing a policy.

As Chuck states below, we assume the Board had significant rationale in 
agreeing to provide protections to the IOC and RCRC prior to passing its 
resolution in Singapore last year and not providing those protections to any 
other group.  Although that has not been published, the GAC, the IOC and RCRC 
have provided substantial rationale for the protection of these names (and not 
the others at this time).  Perhaps we can just append that to our report and 
state we agree.  Would that suffice?
We look forward to constructive dialogue on this going forward.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs

________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.


From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 3:03 PM
To: Kurt Pritz; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Brian Peck; Margie Milam; Amy Stathos
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC / RC Working Group Progress

In my personal opinion, there are several critical issues that are not 
addressed in this message:

*         It was the Board's motion that created the situation we find 
ourselves in and in fact bypassed the PDP, so it seems to me that staff failed 
to address that issue in this communication while at the same time wanting to 
follow the PDP for our response to the Board motion.

*         The new gTLD Application period closes in several weeks and I believe 
it is the DT's belief that implementation details at the top level should be in 
place before that period ends; staff's communication did not address this issue.

*         What was the Board's rationale for providing protection for these 
names; is that sufficient for our rationale?  Our rationale for developing this 
recommendation is at least in part because of the Board motion and of course 
also to be responsive to the GAC's request.

*         Is staff suggesting that we should have simply accepted their 
implementation of the protections for the first round and strictly focused on 
policies for subsequent rounds?  If so, why weren't we told this much sooner?

*         Staff states that we should seek "public review of this significant 
policy addition" and of course we know that and want to do that but it begs the 
question of whether the Board did that before making a significant policy 
decision?  Or am I missing something here?

There may be good explanations for all of the above, but I think it would have 
helped if they were included in the message.  Maybe we can still get them but 
we need them right away.

I would like to know what staff sees as a reasonable path forward relative to 
the Costa Rica meeting, public comment, Council action, ultimately Board 
action, and of course knowing that the new gTLD Application period closes on 
April 12.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 1:22 PM
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Brian Peck; Margie Milam; Amy Stathos
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOC / RC Working Group Progress

All:

Please see the attached document, intended to be helpful in your work on this 
review team as we continue to find the best way forward. (I would have sent as 
an email but didn't want to mess the formatting.

Please contact Margie, Brian or me with questions you might have.

Kurt