RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Preparation for Tomorrow's Call

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I do not recommend taking this approach with respect to the top-level during 
this round.  The motion that is already before the motion is what it is. It can 
be voted up or down in its current form based on what it currently states.  

To open up the recommendations now for the top-level in this round, given the 
GNSO Council comments we received would only raise issues of the need for 
additional public comment (rightfully so) and criticisms that there was not 
enough time for the constituencies to consider the new wording of the motion.  
One of the common themes expressed during the meeting was that "how can we vote 
on a motion that is continuously changing."

For the call today, lets discuss the comments received and how to 
address/respond to them.  We should also discuss whether the comments changes 
any of the opinions of the DT members (i.e., changes support to non-support or 
vice versa). Then we can focus on the work plan to address the second level.


Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs



-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 11:20 AM
To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Preparation for Tomorrow's Call

I already saw your Circle ID article Wolfgang.  I support this approach as I 
have said before, but I still don't think there is enough time to develop the 
language.  I wonder if the IOC and RCRC reps could propose some generic 
language in the next few days?  If they could, maybe we could do this now, but 
I still suspect that it would be difficult for us to do it in such a short 
timeframe.

Would this be a reasonable approach for the DT to take: Recommend that any 
ongoing continuation of these protections beyond the first round be done using 
generic requirements without identification of the eligible organizations?

Note that I am speaking on my own personal behalf.  I have not discussed the 
above with anyone else in the RySG.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:37 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: AW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Preparation for Tomorrow's Call
> 
> Chuck, such a request to the GAC would be helpful. See also my rticle 
> in Circle ID.
> 
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120320_slippery_territory_ioc_and_red_
> c
> ross_in_the_new_gtld_program/
> 
> 
> w
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
> Gesendet: Mi 21.03.2012 12:48
> An: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Betreff: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Preparation for Tomorrow's Call
> 
> 
> 
> Will do Jeff.  Did the Council send a request to the GAC for general 
> language that wouldn't require naming of the IOC and RCRC?
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck
> 
> 
> 
> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc- 
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 9:10 PM
> To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Preparation for Tomorrow's Call
> 
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> 
> 
> Please make sure you review the comments already filed at 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/ioc-rcrc-proposal/ so we are prepared to 
> have a discussion on thee tomorrow.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
> 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
> Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965
> / jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>   /
> www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>
> 
>