[PC-NCSG] [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting
Avri Doria
avri
Thu Sep 20 15:44:13 EEST 2012
Hi,
Yes Mary thanks for being there when I couldn't.
If you beleive the Board is doing a good thing, then it is a good thing to out-Board the Board.
The expression is cousin to 'more catholic than the Pope'
Bill:
Please don't threaten me with the ombudsman.
I am scared of being turned in to the ombudsman.
avri
On 20 Sep 2012, at 08:24, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Thanks for this. Hmm?is "out-boarding" an omsbudable speech crime? :-)
>
> Bill
>
> On Sep 19, 2012, at 10:18 PM, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:
>
>> All, I was able to participate (finally) in the latest DT call earlier this afternoon. The consensus document will be finalized and sent out to each SG/C rep for forwarding on to and discussion amongst all our groups by tomorrow or thereabouts. I'm glad to report that Avri's notes and statements were incorporated into the transcript/records for the meeting, and that most of the group continue to favor a PDP, although there are differences of opinion as to whether this should (a) be just for the second round and beyond, or be expedited to include the first round as well; and (b) cover also the IGO issue in addition to the IOC/RC topic. It was noted also that each SG/C will be able to file a minority statement (per Avri's previous requests).
>>
>> The final language for the consensus document - such as there is a general consensus - is the product of much compromise, and parts of it are likely to not find favor with everyone. In particular, the two questions in the document (per Avri's note below) are linked together, although there is acknowledgment that it will be up to the GNSO Council to determine the final scope of a PDP.
>>
>> It was also noted on the call that each SG/C/individual will have various different mechanisms for feedback to the Council even after the final document is sent to the Council, including through their Councilors and through the mandatory public comment period.
>>
>> We should coordinate a response to the document - which response is expected within a week - and bear in mind that we ought also to continue to be coherent and constant in bringing forward that message to the GNSO Council when the time comes.
>>
>> Once the DT has a final copy of the consensus document, either Avri or I will be sure to circulate it to everyone.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Mary
>>
>>
>> Mary W S Wong
>> Professor of Law
>> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
>> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
>> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
>> Two White Street
>> Concord, NH 03301
>> USA
>> Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
>> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
>> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
>> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>>
>>
>> >>>
>> From:
>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>> To:
>> <gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>
>> Date:
>> 9/19/2012 11:23 AM
>> 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
>> >> dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:33 AM
>> >> To: Avri Doria; gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
>> >> 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
>> >> dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:06 AM
>> >> To: gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
>> >> 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 at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list