[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Our Policy Work and a subsequent PDP Implementation Review Team

Fri Mar 29 17:52:09 UTC 2019

Good evening:

Some form of IRT(s) will almost certainly be necessary.

(a) The IRT should be thoroughly multi-stakeholder and accountable.

(b) The IRT should be empowered to take evidence from external stakeholders, particularly in the case of Geo-TLDs

(c) without prejudice to the general idea of having a single ’Standing IRT’, I would point out that the  issues are likely to be complex, jurisdiction and language/scripts specific, such that  more specialised IRTs may be required.

CW

> On 29 Mar 2019, at 17:50, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>> wrote:
> 
> All,
>  
> Lets please keep the tone civil on these discussions and not assume that there will be malice on any side.  I think we should expect that everyone will have good intentions in deciding what needs to be done.
>  
> All of that said, Steve is correct.  The wording I used was intention to convey that the Council in theory could elect not to constitute an IRT, but I think as past experience has shown (and even for the ePDP), the Council does tend to constitute IRTs and I can’t imagine this circumstance would be any different.  But that is not a decision for this Working Group.
> 
> I do agree with Rubens on the point that we may want to come up with another name for what we are now calling the “Standing IRT Panel” because it can easily get confused with the PDP IRT.  Standing Operation Review Panel (SORP) doesn’t sound quite right though not just because of the funny sounding Acronym, but also because it may be looking at non-operational things.  Perhaps something with Advisory in it.  I first thought of TLD Advisory Review Team, but TART is much worse 😊  Perhaps TLD Advisory Panel (TAP)?
>  
>  
>  
> Jeff Neuman
> Senior Vice President 
>  
> Com Laude | Valideus
> 1751 Pinnacle Drive
> Suite 600, McLean
> VA 22102, USA
> 
> M: +1.202.549.5079
> D: +1.703.635.7514
> E: jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
> www.comlaude.com <http://www.comlaude.com/>
> 
> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com <http://attachment.com/> Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc.
>  
> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 11:12 AM
> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>
> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Our Policy Work and a subsequent PDP Implementation Review Team
>  
>  
> 
> 
> Em 28 de mar de 2019, à(s) 20:39:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> escreveu:
>  
> I think maybe that if I am a registry or registrar Council member, I just vote “NO IRT” in the Implementation Phase cause that might slow things down.  (let’s get this next round going!)
>  
>  
> Isn't that awful when Council members vote based only thinking of their constituencies instead of the greater good ? Guess what, this happened a few weeks ago. And it wasn't done by CPH councillors. 
> 
> 
>  
> How is it that our Charter permits numerous recommendations for “Implementation Guidance” and permits a recommendation for a standing IRT after launch, but somehow prohibits a recommendation for an IRT during the Implementation Phase?
>  
>  
> I believe Steve already covered this. 
>  
>  
> Rubens
>  
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190329/f2079c88/attachment-0001.html>