[gnso-iocrc-dt] Summary of Action Items at the Top Level

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

All,

For those of you that were unable to attend the call, you missed a good 
discussion where we reviewed a number of the public comments that came in thus 
far to the original recommendations.  I asked two key questions during the call 
on the motion.


1.        First, I asked everyone from the Drafting Team, whether, after review 
of the comments, their review of the comments changed their support or 
non-support for the recommendations submitted to the Council.


2.       Second, I asked the question whether any of the Drafting Team members 
believed that changes could be made to the motion to address the comments that 
were received?

On the first question, the members of the Drafting Team that were present (a 
list of whom will be sent around, but it did represent a good cross section), 
stated that their positions had not changed from the original consensus call - 
meaning that if they supported the recommendations before, they still supported 
them OR if they did not support them, they still do not support.

On the second question, many of the Drafting Team members felt that the motion 
could be improved to address some of the comments, but not if it meant that 
there would be a delay on the vote of the motion.  However, they reserved the 
right to go back to their groups to get their feedback.  Below you will find a 
proposal by Chuck that was discussed during the call with respect to 
Recommendation Number 3 - to replace it with the text below.  The proposal in 
response to the comments received is to make the review mandatory AND to 
address the protections in a more general fashion as opposed to calling out 
specifically the IOC or the RCRC.

Recommendation 3: Protection must be reviewed after the first round and that 
review should include consideration of changing the language to general 
requirements rather than naming specific organizations.

In its proposal, the GAC has recommended that protections for the IOC and RCRC 
should not just apply during the first round of new gTLDs but should be a 
permanent protection for all subsequent rounds.   The drafting team recognizes 
that permanently granting protection to the IOC and RCRC may have policy 
implications that require more work and consultation so that protections may be 
reviewed.

As the proposer of the motion, I asked the DT to go back to their groups to see 
whether these changes should be viewed as friendly or whether the changing of 
the recommendation would likely need further review, and thus delay.  If the 
response is that the groups would support this as being friendly, then if 
proposed during the Council meeting I would accept.  If, however, the group 
feels like this would need further comment and input, and therefore delay the 
motion, I would not accept as friendly.

Please feel free to comment.

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/>