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

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan, 
I would rather guess that they have seen the proposal currently under 
discussion and phrased the "Whereas" to give us a signal that they like the 
idea. 

As already discussed during our last call, I would urge the group to use a 
terminology that does not suggest that we are giving the designations the 
status of reserved names, unless the outcome of a PDP grants it. It is a 
detail, but the message to the community is different.

Thomas

Am 19.09.2012 um 06:06 schrieb Alan Greenberg:

> 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.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 18/09/2012 11:20 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>> All,
>>  
>> 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 2.2.1.2.3 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 / 
>> jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx   / www.neustar.biz 
>>