[gnso-iocrc-dt] Re: [council] Initiation of IGO/INGO Protection PDP

[Neuman, Jeff]

I have been silent for a week to see how this pans out, but I have to say that I agree with Chuck and Alan.  The way I see it, now that a PDP has been initiated, there is only 1 recommendation for the council to consider as a result of the DT work, and that is whether or not to recommend the "moratorium" on the IOC and RCRC marks.  As this is new gTLD implementation, I do not believe that PDP is necessary for the DT to make this recommendation (or not) to the Council.  Nor is a PDP needed for the Council to recommend this (or not) to the Board.

So, unless anyone disagrees, once the comment period ends, we will convene one last meeting to see whether the comments change anyone's views on the moratorium.

Please let me know if you think I am missing something here.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs


From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 7:59 PM
To: Margie Milam; Alan Greenberg; Brian Peck; council at gnso.icann.org; gnso-secs at icann.org
Cc: Berry Cobb Mail; Marika Konings; iocRC DT
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Re: [council] Initiation of IGO/INGO Protection PDP

Margie,

I had two concerns: 1) timing & 2) ability of the new WG to respond quickly in responding to the public comment period.  Regarding timing, if the new WG is formed and ready to go by the end of the reply period, that would likely resolve most of my concerns in that regard.  But even if that is the case, if there are lots of new participants in the new WG, they will need to be brought up to speed so it might take longer to respond to the public comments; maybe that would be okay but I am not sure.  In my opinion, whatever works best for minimizing the total time needed to get the PDP work done as quick as possible is the best way to go.

Chuck

From: Margie Milam [mailto:Margie.Milam at icann.org]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 3:18 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Alan Greenberg; Brian Peck; council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>; gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
Cc: Berry Cobb Mail; Marika Konings; iocRC DT
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Re: [council] Initiation of IGO/INGO Protection PDP

Dear Chuck & Alan,

I am not sure why the PDP and the DT couldn't be blended at this point.    There has been criticism of the work of the drafting team because it was viewed by some as not following the proper process.   Under the flexibility of the new PDP rules,  this PDP could certainly do the work of analyzing the public comment, and developing the response to the Board request for the Council to consider by the deadline.   The issues are the same, so it would seem redundant to have two groups working on this topic simultaneously.

We envision that the two sub-teams work in parallel, and would not be mutually exclusive.  Does this address your & Alan's concerns?

All the best,
Margie
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 3:13 PM
To: Alan Greenberg; Brian Peck; council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>; gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
Cc: Margie Milam; Berry Cobb Mail; Marika Konings; iocRC DT
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Re: [council] Initiation of IGO/INGO Protection PDP

I think I agree with Alan because the DT could more readily analyze the public comments and suggest modifications to the DT recommendations.  Moreover, the DT work could  be done concurrently with the formation of the PDP WG.  I am open to further discussion on this.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 8:20 PM
To: Brian Peck; council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>; gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
Cc: Margie Milam; Berry Cobb Mail; Marika Konings; iocRC DT
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Re: [council] Initiation of IGO/INGO Protection PDP

My inclination is to disagree on the last point. Sub-group A is likely to be superset of the DT (perhaps a large one) and I think the original DT should do the analysis and comments of the PC input (along with any changes to the recommendations of needed).

Alan

At 26/10/2012 06:13 PM, Brian Peck wrote:

Because the IOC/RCRC DT members will likely participate in the IGO-INGO PDP, Staff suggests that the current IOC/RCRC DT be suspended.  It is expected that the remaining IOC/RCRC DT efforts, after the close of the public comment period, will be addressed by sub-group A of the PDP WG mentioned above.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20121029/823917f2/attachment.html>