ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, "gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:43:34 +0000


In saying "we will note the NCSG objection to the consensus call" I assume you 
mean that we will note the NCSG answer to both consensus call questions is 'no' 
rather than noting that the NCSG objects to the fact that a consensus call was 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:33 AM
> To: Avri Doria; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting
> 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 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
> >>

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy