FW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Summary of Action Items at the Top Level

[Joy Liddicoat]

Hi all - unfortunately I missed this call this morning, but I understand
that Wolfgang was present and may be able to enlighten. Below is a summary
and a proposed amendment FYI.

Kind regards

Joy



From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, 22 March 2012 8:24 a.m.
To: gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Summary of Action Items at the Top Level



All,



For those of you that were unable to attend the call, you missed a good
discussion where we reviewed a number of the public comments that came in
thus far to the original recommendations.  I asked two key questions during
the call on the motion.



1.        First, I asked everyone from the Drafting Team, whether, after
review of the comments, their review of the comments changed their support
or non-support for the recommendations submitted to the Council.



2.       Second, I asked the question whether any of the Drafting Team
members believed that changes could be made to the motion to address the
comments that were received?



On the first question, the members of the Drafting Team that were present (a
list of whom will be sent around, but it did represent a good cross
section), stated that their positions had not changed from the original
consensus call - meaning that if they supported the recommendations before,
they still supported them OR if they did not support them, they still do not
support.



On the second question, many of the Drafting Team members felt that the
motion could be improved to address some of the comments, but not if it
meant that there would be a delay on the vote of the motion.  However, they
reserved the right to go back to their groups to get their feedback.  Below
you will find a proposal by Chuck that was discussed during the call with
respect to Recommendation Number 3 - to replace it with the text below.  The
proposal in response to the comments received is to make the review
mandatory AND to address the protections in a more general fashion as
opposed to calling out specifically the IOC or the RCRC.



Recommendation 3: Protection must be reviewed after the first round and that
review should include consideration of changing the language to general
requirements rather than naming specific organizations.



In its proposal, the GAC has recommended that protections for the IOC and
RCRC should not just apply during the first round of new gTLDs but should be
a permanent protection for all subsequent rounds.   The drafting team
recognizes that permanently granting protection to the IOC and RCRC may have
policy implications that require more work and consultation so that
protections may be reviewed.



As the proposer of the motion, I asked the DT to go back to their groups to
see whether these changes should be viewed as friendly or whether the
changing of the recommendation would likely need further review, and thus
delay.  If the response is that the groups would support this as being
friendly, then if proposed during the Council meeting I would accept.  If,
however, the group feels like this would need further comment and input, and
therefore delay the motion, I would not accept as friendly.



Please feel free to comment.


Thanks.



Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 /
<mailto:jeff.neuman at neustar.biz> jeff.neuman at neustar.biz  /
<http://www.neustar.biz/> www.neustar.biz



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120322/2a16cb54/attachment.html>