<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Template>Normal.dotm</o:Template>
<o:Revision>0</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Words>480</o:Words>
<o:Characters>2740</o:Characters>
<o:Company>Indom</o:Company>
<o:Lines>22</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>5</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>3364</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>12.0</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Tableau Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-ansi-language:FR;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment--><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;
text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Helvetica;mso-bidi-font-family:
Helvetica;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Councillors,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;
text-autospace:none">I want to bring to your attention the
current situation in the IOCRC Drafting Team.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;
text-autospace:none">On March 1, 2012, ICANN Staff sent a message
to the IOCRC DT that is currently looking at ways to implement the June 20,
2011 Board resolution directing the GNSO Council to develop policy to
permanently protect Olympic and Red Cross names at both the top and second
level as part of the new gTLD program. The message contained suggestions "to
assist the team in their work".</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;
text-autospace:none">Members of the DT, including its Chair Jeff
Neuman, reacted strongly to the comments from Staff. From the DT's mailing
list, it can be seen that there is worry on several issues.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;
text-autospace:none">One major worry seems to be that in the
context of a June 20, 2011 Board resolution that appeared to modify the GNSO
PDP on new gTLDs with respect to the issue of Reserved Names, Staff suggest in
their letter that the DT <u>or the Council</u> now should provide a rationale
for why these names should be protected.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;
text-autospace:none">This is what I have been told by the DT
Chair:</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;
text-autospace:none"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span style="font-family:Helvetica;mso-bidi-font-family:Helvetica;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">"The DT asked Staff to provide the rationale for the June 20, 2011 Board
resolution from the outset, but Staff did not. In addition, there is no mention
of the rationale behind the Board’s motion in the minutes from that meeting. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Although there is some information about
the IOC/RC issue in the Board Papers posted well after the meeting, the entire rationale
for the motion is redacted as being privileged and confidential.</span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;
text-autospace:none"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span style="font-family:Helvetica;mso-bidi-font-family:Helvetica;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">The DT is surprised to see Staff now ask it to provide this rationale
instead.</span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;
text-autospace:none"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span style="font-family:Helvetica;mso-bidi-font-family:Helvetica;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span style="font-family:Helvetica;mso-bidi-font-family:Helvetica;mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Even more surprising is that fact that without any consultation of the
GNSO community, ICANN staff chose to implement the ICANN Board resolution in a
manner unlike any other “reserved name” in the Applicant Guidebook.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The DT saw this as a flaw in the implementation
of the resolution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>When it tried
to provide a recommendation on fixing that perceived flaw, ICANN staff asked
for a detailed rationale along with a lengthy 42 day public comment
period.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The message sent by staff
essentially is that no public consultation is necessary for ICANN staff’s
unilateral discretion in implementation matters, but if anyone wants to change
that implementation (even if flawed), that requires public consultation."</span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;
text-autospace:none">I see one of my main duties as Chair of this
Council to be to defend the community-driven, consensus-based, bottom-up policy
process that is at the foundation of ICANN, and the policies the GNSO produces.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;
text-autospace:none">The DT has expressed a clear worry that the
original board motion coupled with the staff’s implementation of that message
may be an instance where the policy process has been circumvented. I am not
saying it has. But having been informed of this by the DT, I am taking that
possibility seriously.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;
text-autospace:none">As such, I have asked Kurt Pritz, who sent
the message from Staff to the IOCRC DT, to provide detailed answers to the
questions asked, not by me, but by the DT members themselves. No answers have
been provided yet, but we should of course all be mindful that we are in the
run-up to an ICANN meeting and everyone's schedules are pretty hectic right
now.</p><div>I am hopeful that answers will be provided soon.</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;
text-autospace:none">As a group, we are stewards of the PDP in
general and minders of policies that this Council has adopted in the past. As
such, I wanted to make sure you were aware of the situation.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;
text-autospace:none">Stéphane</p>
<!--EndFragment--></body></html>