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

["Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I hope that we can avoid getting bogged down with semantics.  I concur with 
those that think it would be better not to create a new term (“moratorium”) if 
we can use an existing one.  Perhaps we can avoid the “long drawn out process” 
of removing the names from the reserved list, and simply specify that these 
strings will be “reserved” only until the conclusion of the PDP process.  Thus, 
they would fall off the reserved list automatically, except to the extent that 
the PDP results in making some or all of these strings permanently reserved.

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:56 AM
To: Thomas Rickert; Alan Greenberg
Cc: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting

Alan,

It is precisely for the reason Thomas mentioned (as was discussed last week) 
that I chose to not use the “reserved list” designation.  Removal of names from 
the reserved list implies a long drawn out process (usually through the RSEP 
process, or through negotiations with the GAC, etc.).  Whereas here, we were 
only placing a temporary restriction on the release of the names pending the 
outcome of a PDP.

But you are correct, that the whole moratorium was predicated on their actually 
being a full pdp on the IOC/RCRC names.  Without that PDP, I am not sure all of 
the positions that were expressed by the groups would still be the same.

If you all have a better way to express that, please let me know.

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

From: Thomas Rickert 
[mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 3:52 AM
To: Alan Greenberg
Cc: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting

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<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>   / 
www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>





* * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may 
well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice 
of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete 
this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any 
purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your 
cooperation.

* * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, 
unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in 
this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to 
be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under 
the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) 
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters 
addressed herein.

Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00