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

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think we should set on the fact that we will definitely be making 
recommendations at the second level. We are still discussing these and they 
raise much more complex and significant issues compared to the top level. So, 
while I think we should discuss them, we should also refrain from doing so with 
our mindsets fixed that we will definitely produce recommendations at the 
second level space.

Thanks

Konstantinos

From: Gregory Shatan <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 20:13:57 +0000
To: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Kurt Pritz 
<kurt.pritz@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:kurt.pritz@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Brian Peck <brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx>>, Margie 
Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>>, Amy Stathos 
<amy.stathos@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:amy.stathos@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC / RC Working Group Progress

Also, it seems to assume that we are recommending no change at the second 
level.  This is incorrect.  We have begun to consider the issues at the second 
level, with an eye toward making recommendations at the second level.

Greg

________________________________
From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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

* * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may 
well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice 
of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete 
this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any 
purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your 
cooperation.
* * *
To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, 
unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in 
this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to 
be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under 
the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) 
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters 
addressed herein.
Disclaimer Version RS.US.1.01.03
pdc1