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

["J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>]

I fully agree.

J. Scott

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 1, 2012, at 1:43 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

> 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
>