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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

(I am bcc'ing this to the NCSG Policy Committee, so that they know what I am 
saying.)

The NCSG is in favor of the PDP as a plan: meaning that once the PDP is framed 
in the g-council, they will take a decision on the PDP itself - as I expect 
other SG/Cs will.  So if the consensus call separates the two questions we are 
in favor of PDP and against reserved/moratorium lists.  If the recommendations 
to the g-council are bound together, then we are against the overall 
recommendation.

As for the notion of whether policies that apply to new gTLDs should also apply 
to incumbent gTLDs, I have not gauged the NCSG response on this specific 
question yet as it is not currently in question.  In fact I had always assumed 
that this was an existing GNSO position.  And especially with regard to 
reserved names, when the G-council discussed these issues during the new gTLD 
PDP, I never heard anyone propose the notion that we have separate reserved 
names lists for new gTLDs and incumbent gTLDs.  Yes, that is the effect of 
granting the IOC and the IFRC the exceptions they demand, but I do not remember 
us ever discussing the policy implications on the incumbents.  I have always 
found the incumbents readiness to impose these requirements on the new gTLDs 
without seeming to consider the larger policy effects a bit confounding.

As for insulting this team with the phrase 'out-Boarding the Board'.  Yes, it 
is true that this group came to the idea of a special reserved list first in 
its attempt to please the GAC.  In my mind, this ordering difference does not 
change the fact that we are bending over backwards to comply with GAC demands 
without a proper policy process - and to me that is a prime example of 
'out-Boarding the Board' - we just beat them to it this time.

avri



On 19 Sep 2012, at 10:43, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 
> Jeff,
> 
> 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 made.
> 
> Chuck
> 
>> -----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 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
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>