Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th

[Wendy Seltzer]

Like Avri, I believe NCSG should reject the 3b "temporary registration
block."

We support the PDP only on the condition that among the possible
outcomes is the current status quo, no protection at the second level,
(but support the PDP as the appropriate place to resolve among competing
proposals), so we would not change that before the policy development
runs its course.

--Wendy

On 09/27/2012 02:22 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> We agreed to the moratorium?
> This its very very wrong. I thought it had been clear that we defected that!
> 
> This its a real mistake.
> 
> "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at MEDIENKOMM.UNI-HALLE.DE> wrote:
> 
>>
>> Hi friends
>>
>> I was the only one from the NCUC/NCSG who participated in tonights
>> conference call of the Drafting Team on IOC/RC.  
>>
>> The final outcome can be seen in the revised text of the draft
>> recommendation. There will be some minor changes (in particular to the
>> "maybe" of the temporary measures/ 3b). However there was a "rough
>> consensus" to move forward on the basis of the text towards a comment
>> period and the plan to initiative a PDP. 
>>
>> Among the questions discussed was the issue whether there should be one
>> or two PDPs and whether IOC and RC should be seperated. I summarized
>> our discussions in the NCUC/NCSG and supported the idea of ONE PDP and
>> expressed also our position that within the one PDP process there
>> should be a seperate treatement of Red Cross, IOC, IGOs and IOs.
>> Another issue was timing. People understand, that then lurcome of the
>> PDP, if we get one, woöö be mainly for a second round, so some
>> "temporary measures" has to be taken for round 1. 
>>
>> The constellation is a little bit complex because we address this both
>> to the GAC and the GNSO Council. There will be a special meeting
>> between the GAC and ther DT in Toronto before the GNSO Council meeting.
>> With other words we have to be very careful not to come with an
>> inconsistent position to the GAC meeting or to pre-decide what only the
>> GNSO Council can decide. 
>>
>> As said above there was a rough consensus, however some constituencies
>> had minor reservations which will be documented.
>>
>> If we have serious reservations to the attached text, please let me
>> know as soon as possible so that we can attach it to the final package.
>>
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> wolfgang
> 
> Avri Doria
> 


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
http://wendy.seltzer.org/
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/