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

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

Thanks for this Avri and your opinions should be noted.

I just wanted to be clear for the record that our proposal for the moratorium 
did predate the Board's resolution (without any knowledge that the Board was 
even having that discussion), so the premise and our rationale, I believe have 
nothing to do with the Board's resolution.  In fact, we are just continuing 
down the same path, in my opinion, that we started down regardless of the 
Board's resolution.  It just so happens that it may be in line with their 
resolution.

I think it may be unfair to those that have made the proposal and those that 
support it to classify this as outboarding the board?

On the point that this should apply to incumbents, by definition, outcomes of 
PDPs if there are Consensus Policies in them would apply to incumbents and 
therefore those discussions should absolutely occur during the PDP.  So, I am 
not sure there is any disagreement there.  

Thanks again and we will note the NCSG objection to the consensus call and has 
been our practice allow that opposing statement to be posted.

Best regards,

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


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:06 AM
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting



Hi,

I too will miss the meeting.  If possible I would like this message to be 
entered into the meeting content.

In my view anything put on the reserved names list MUST also apply to 
incumbents as well as new gTLDs, and that is a problem that a PDP MUST discuss 
and plan for.  One thing we need to be careful of, is creating more and more 
differential requirements for new versus old gTLDs.  Rather, the trend needs to 
be one of bringing requirements between the new and the old into line with each 
other.

I, and the NCSG, remain in favor of a PDP and against any addition to the 
reserved names list until such time as a PDP has made its recommendation.
I am also against the creation of the new term, moratorium, and a new list.

If the Board in response to GAC advice wishes to take this action, that is 
their business.  The idea I have read that because the Board is going to do it 
anyway, we should do it first is, to my mind, silly.  Rather, since they are 
going to do it anyway and we can't stop them, we might as well let them do it 
and not try to out-Board the Board.

Assuming this DT votes in approval, I request the right to include an opposing 
statement.


avri


On 19 Sep 2012, at 01:06, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> 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 
>>