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

["Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Given that the primary request from the GAC was for recommendations at
the second level, I think we should absolutely be set and determined to
make recommendations at the second level.  Otherwise, we would have
failed.

Best regards,

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 4:35 AM
To: Shatan, Gregory S.; Chuck Gomes; Kurt Pritz; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Brian Peck; Margie Milam; Amy Stathos
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: IOC / RC Working Group Progress

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