[IOT] Reviewing the consultation responses

[Malcolm Hutty]

I have been reading the consultation responses.

Replies were only received from elements of the gNSO or stakeholders
from within gNSO, other than a submission from Samantha Eisner[*].
That is, there were no replies from GAC, individual governments, ccNSO
or individual ccTLDs, ALAC, or from ASO, the NRO or the RIRs.

Of these, each of the elements of the Non-Contracted Parties House
(NCSG, ISPCP, BC, IPC) all wrote to support the removal of repose, and
oppose its reintroduction.

INTA, a trademark holders organisation, wrote individually to agree with
removing repose, and asked for some other changes. The Registrar
Stakeholder Group (RrSG) also supported our proposal, and asked for an
adjustment to the wording for the purposes of clarification:

 "In summary, the RrSG supports the IRP-IOT Draft Recommendations, but
  encourages the IRT-IOT to allow 120 days from when an action/inaction
  becomes part of a dispute and not just creates potential for it."
(BC and IPC also wanted some changes: both asked for time spent during
certain other processes to be discounted (e.g. during CEP, while waiting
for a document release under the DIDP etc)

The Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) and Versign both wrote to
disagree with our proposal, and to ask for the reintroduction of a
repose rule set at 24 or 36 months. Samantha Eisner maintained her
long-standing disagreement with our proposal.

We now need to consider how we proceed. As I see it, we have three options.

1. The first option is to acknowledge that a clear majority of the
community that expressed a view has explicitly supported our proposal
(and urged us to avoid reversion), and that most of the remainder has
given its silent consent, with only one gNSO constituency in
disagreement. We could note that this is unsurprising since the proposal
was made in direct response to a broad consensus request from the
community in the previous consultation. We would therefore to proceed to
conclude our report on the basis of general community support short of
full consensus, possibly making some or all of the amendments requested
by some commenters.

2. The second option is to spend yet more time attempting to reach a
compromise that could achieve full consensus.

3. The third option is to report that we are unable to reach full
consensus, and instead include in our report a faithful representation
of the opposing viewpoints and the supporting arguments. In other words,
to admit failure and leave it for the Board to sort it out.


If anyone can think of any further options, I would be interested to
hear them.


[*] From the text of Sam's reply, I interpret her submission as not
representing ICANN's position, but rather staff advice from the legal
team. If that is a mistake, I hope Sam will clarify.

-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
           Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA