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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Kurt and ICANN staff.

I think Jeff and Chuck have asked some very pointed questions and made some 
very important points in response to your message. So I will not add to them.

However, I would urge you, in your efforts to support this GNSO drafting team 
as indicated in your message, to provide answers to the points raised as 
quickly as possible.

Thanks,

Stéphane



Le 1 mars 2012 à 21:25, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :

> 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] On 
> Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 1:22 PM
> To: 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