[PC-NCSG] Reconsideration

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi Ed,

Thank you so much for following up on this issue ever since the public comment periods on the RA renewals. I will not object to NCSG being one of the submitters of this RR, however, I am a little puzzled. This RR seems less to me like an objection on bypassing due process provided by the the GNSO?s PDP (and also required by ICANN?s bylaws), and more like a request to ICANN to disclose correspondence with the registries to ensure that the inclusion of of the RPMs during RA renewals was a result of ?even-handed bilateral negotiations?. Am I reading this incorrectly?

I also want to point something out regarding some of the references to the principles in the Policy and Implementation (P&I) WG final report made on page 4 of the draft RR. These principles were part of the P&I WG final report and recommendations, which the GNSO Council adopted. The ICANN board, however, did not adopt the principles recommended by the WG. It only approved the creation of the new processes that the WG came up with. In the absence of these principles, the new processes are not going to serve their truly intended purposes. Furthermore, regardless of the new processes, these principles are very relevant to the traditional PDP, and would be a great point to make in this RR, had they actually been adopted. Not sure if this changes anything, but thought I should point it out.

Thanks again for the work you?ve done on this RR, and generally on this topic over the past few months.

Amr

> On Oct 12, 2015, at 2:53 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi guys,
>  
>  
> I've attached a copy of a draft Reconsideration Request I've been working on with Phil Corwin. There may be some changes in grammar and the like but substantially this is likely to be what we'd hope to submit. As the deadline for submission is tomorrow comments / approval is requested.
>  
> The base issue at hand is staff imposing new gTLD RPM's on legacy gTLD's through newel agreements. This is de facto development of consensus policy through contract by staff rather than through a properly constituted pop. As we've previously discussed on list this needs to be opposed if the GNSO hopes to maintain its current role.
>  
> We and the BC certainly do not share common positions on the substantive issue involved here; that is, the BC would be very happy to have the new RPM's applied to legacy gTLD's while that traditionally has not been our position. It's been a bit of a challenge to get language acceptable to both in this regard as Phil head some specific instructions but hopefully we've done do.
>  
> I'll turn this over to our esteemed Chair and PC head honcho to see how / if we can sign off on this. Again, the submission deadline is tomorrow so this needs to get done pronto. It's rare to get a CSG member to oppose ip expansion, even on a procedural basis, so I hope we can take advantage of this opportunity.
>  
> Best,
>  
> Ed
> <PCSubRR.docx>_______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg