Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC / RC Working Group Progress
I will put my two cents in on this. And be just a bit blunter than my colleagues. I was really thrown for a loop by this statement. As Jeff implied, we took as a given that the Board HAD given basic protection to the two groups. I do not believe that anyone in the group felt we could simply reverse that initiative and effectively say NO to the GAC where the Board had already said YES (and have that position ultimately ratified by the Board). If that was within our purview, I suspect quite a few people in the group (and the organizations they represent) would have done just that. Nor are we in a position to say why these two organizations deserve special treatment when others don't. The GAC documents "a tapestry of treaties and laws" claiming that these two organizations were indeed unique. If we are to question that, perhaps we should have been given access to a team of legal scholars. To rephrase what Jeff said, we took as a given that we were not there to overturn the Board decision, since that was already in the AG and was "operational". But we did feel that it was sufficiently flawed as to cause significant problems and therefore need to be adjusted. That is what we have done in this phase. Taking out my crystal ball, I predict that our discussions on 2nd level protection will take a VERY different path in light of this present document. Alan At 01/03/2012 03:25 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote: 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 chucks 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/Staffs 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 Teams 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 staffs implementation of the Board Resolution in Singapore which itself was not subject to a public comment period. We believe Staffs 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 AffairsThe 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, ChuckSent: 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 ProgressIn my personal opinion, there are several critical issues that are not addressed in this message: · It was the Boards 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 DTs belief that implementation details at the top level should be in place before that period ends; staffs communication did not address this issue. · What was the Boards 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 GACs 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 werent 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.ChuckFrom: <mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kurt PritzSent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 1:22 PM To: <mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>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
|