ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting

  • To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:06:36 -0400

Jeff, in light of "Whereas, the Board favors a conservative approach, that restrictions on second-level registration can be lifted at a later time, but restrictions cannot be applied retroactively after domain names are registered.", It sounds like a "moratorium" is exactly what they have in mind, so my guess is that they would be quite satisfied with this approach.

My personal take is that we should not invent a new term - moratorium, but rather say that the names should be included on the reserved names list pending the outcome of the PDP with whatever other verbage is necessary to make it crystal clear that if the PDP decides that they should not be on the reserved names list, they get taken off upon implementation of the PDP recommendations.

The GAC letter was dated 14 September - https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2011-09-14-IOCRC-1.


At 18/09/2012 11:20 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

A meeting I am unable to get out of has just come up that makes it impossible for me to attend the call. It would still be good for you all to discuss the e-mail sent around earlier to make sure that I have worded the proposal accurately and to refine if necessary, so that we can get final feedback on the consensus call by September 26th.

I am going to ask Chuck or Thomas if they can lead the call….sorry to put you two on the spot. If you want, you can discuss the Board resolution as well. I believe that our current proposal may be in line with the resolution, but there may be some issues I believe that need to be addressed.

The resolution states:

Resolved (NG2012.09.13.01), if it is not possible to conclude the policy work prior to 31 January 2013, the Board requests that the GNSO Council advise the Board by no later than that date if it is aware of any reason, such as concerns with the global public interest or the security or stability of the DNS, that the Board should take into account in making its decision about whether to include second level protections for the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent names listed in section of the Applicant Guidebook by inclusion on a Reserved Names List applicable in all new gTLD registries approved in the first round of the New gTLD Program

What does it mean to “conclude the policy work”? If the GNSO recommends the “moratorium on registrations”, but initiates the pdp (which will not likely be done by 1/31/13), would the Board attempt to override the ongoing pdp. Or would the moratorium on registrations satisfy this requirement. I would like to see if the Board’s new gTLD Program Committee could give us some more details about this. Please let me know if you share my concerns.

Thanks in advance and I apologize for not being able to attend, but I wil listen to the recording.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx / www.neustar.biz

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy