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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Avri.  Do you want this statement as well as your earlier one included 
in the minutes?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:22 AM
> To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting
> 
> 
> 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
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>