Status of IOC/IFRC special rights group was Fwd: [] CALL CANCELLATION: Meeting Invitation/GAC/GNSO issues related to International Olympic Committee (IOC) & Red Cross (RC) names discussion group

[Avri Doria]

BTW, anyone who is interested in the other replies can follow the list at: <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-iocrc-dt/>
I think the opinion from the group will be divided. 

(-: so much for my obvious remark of the day)

avri

On 2 May 2012, at 12:44, Robin Gross wrote:

> Thanks for bringing this issue to the attention of the membership.  I agree with your approach that this group should document its work, but not try to attempt any further recommendations.  The council will deliberate the issue and if a pdp on the issue is go forward, it should be done through a legitimate policy development process, not this ad hoc anything goes group consisting of mostly IOC lobbyists and supporters.  If policy recommendations are to be made, they should be done through a legitimate process.
> 
> Best,
> Robin
> 
> 
> On May 2, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> I would like to get NCSG view on my personal response.
>> I expect this is an issue that belongs on the upcoming NCSG policy discussion.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: CALL CANCELLATION: Meeting Invitation/GAC/GNSO issues related to International Olympic Committee (IOC) & Red Cross (RC) names discussion group
>>> Date: 2 May 2012 11:34:49 EDT
>>> To: gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> My personal view is sort of hybrid.
>>> 
>>> I think that this group should not produce any further recommendations but should finish up by documenting what it has done.  The documentation that came out with the recommendations was, I understand, incomplete.  I think it would be a pity to waste all those volunteer hours, especially those that could have been lucrative billable hours, without producing a coherent synthesis that shows all sides of the work the group did.
>>> 
>>> I also think, as always when there is a communication from another of the SOAC entities, that the g-council owes a response to the GAC that points to the report of work done, describes the process ahead with PDP etc, and that invites GAC members to participate in that PDP's WG when it gets going.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> On 2 May 2012, at 11:11, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>>> 
>>>> All,
>>>> 
>>>> I just wanted to drop a quick note explaining why I cancelled the call for today.  Over the past couple of weeks, there has been a lot of chatter in various groups about the dismantling of our drafting team for a variety of reasons ranging from the practical (“Lets wait until the PDP to restructure a group like this”) to the cynical (“The Board rejected all of the Drafting Teams recommendations and there Is nothing left for the group to do”).  Although the Drafting Team understands that the Board only dealt with the Top Level Recommendations and that the GAC Proposal to which we were responding has recommendations at the second level, there is still a lot of negative chatter out there calling for this group to be abandoned.  
>>>> 
>>>> The GNSO Council Call will address this issue next week and decide (hopefully) the future of this group.  Before that happens, however, I would like to know your thoughts on whether this Drafting Team should cease it operations.  From my own personal perspective (and not necessarily my SG), I believe that although we voted in favor of commencing  PDP on issues that are related to the IOC-RC proposals, the GNSO owes a response to the GAC on the GAC’s September 2011 proposal (the majority of which addresses proposed second level protections).  That proposal is now 8 months old and whether this Drafting Team helps with crafting that answer or not, the GNSO must provide a well-thought out and reasoned response.  I believe it would not be wise to ignore the proposal or to tell the GAC that we are going to wait for the issue report to be drafted and finalized by October and then decide whether to commence a PDP and then take a year or longer to provide the GNSO Council response (which could be 2-3 years after the initial proposal). 
>>>> 
>>>> In the end, it will not be me making this call, but rather the Council.  I believe your feedback will help inform the Council on what it should do next week.  If any of you have thoughts on this, I would be happy to present those thoughts to the Council next week.
>>>> 
>>>> I truly appreciate the work you all have done to and regardless of what ultimately happens, I believe the work has been beneficial to the GNSO Community.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
>>>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From: owner-ntfy-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-ntfy-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nathalie Peregrine
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 4:48 AM
>>>> To: ntfy-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org
>>>> Subject: [ntfy-gnso-iocrc-dt] CALL CANCELLATION: Meeting Invitation/GAC/GNSO issues related to International Olympic Committee (IOC) & Red Cross (RC) names discussion group
>>>> 
>>>> Dear All,
>>>> 
>>>> The next call for the GAC/GNSO issues related to International Olympic Committee (IOC) & Red Cross (RC) names discussion group initially scheduled for today  Wednesday 02 May 2012 at 1800 UTC has now been cancelled as per Jeff Neuman.
>>>> Details about possible future calls will follow shortly.
>>>> 
>> 
>