ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, "gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting
  • From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:50:18 -0400

Yes.  I see now how what I said was confusing.  But you are correct. 

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:44 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Avri Doria; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting


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