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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Not sure it is needed as it is explanatory, but sure, thanks, since it answers 
questions asked based on my previous email.

thanks

avri

On 19 Sep 2012, at 13:08, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 
> 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
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>