[NCSG-Discuss] The Board, IGO entitlement to special protections and 28 Feb

[Carl Smith]

Thanks Avri,

This is disturbing news.  Hope you can get a quorum of the brainy people 
in the group to create a sound response.  I wish I was thirty years 
younger.  Looking forward to discussions.

Best

Lou

On 2/13/2013 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> During yesterday's meeting we discussed the irem on the g-cpuncil agenda pertaining to special protection for IGO, given the deadline of 28 Feb for Board consideration of yet another preemptive assignment of an entitlement to protection, as was done for the RCRC and IOC.
>
> It appears that Thomas is planning to suggest that the GNSO support a decision by the Board granting entitlements to IGO names as suggest by the GAC.
>
> Unfortunately Evan and I were the only one to speak out agains the board making the decisions at this time because:
>
> A. it is not the same as the RCRC/IOC case since a PDP is ongoing and this prejudices that work
> B.  It is not an emergency
>
> But Alan, the IOC and the Greg Shatan (IGO) spoke in favor of getting this new entitlement as soon as possible, so the recommendation from Thomas will be for the creation of the new entitlements, once again preempting the rule of PDP.
>
> Note: Alan also suggested that if we don't like this or the previous RCRC/IOC entitlement decision, we should file a reconsideration.  For once, I agree with him.
>
> I would also note that no one from the RrSg or RySG ventured an opinion.
>
> At this point we have, perhaps, until 28 Feb to file a statement rejecting yet another attack against the Rule of PDP.  Should we be working on one?
>
> Also should we file a request for reconsideration of the previous decision on RCRC and IOC?  I am less sure about this because since there was no PDP in process at the time.  While the best thing for the Board to have done would have been to request a PDP, there was no rule that barred them from the making a preemptive decision as they did.  Yes it is against the pubic interest in that it erodes the confidence in the ICANN and its processes, but it is not prevented by the bylaws.
>
> avri
>