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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Fri Mar 29 20:21:40 UTC 2019


I think we can “recommend “ an IRT but is not a policy recommendation that
will go to the Board.  But it’s within the discretion of the Council to
adopt the recommendation and set up the IRT.

Greg

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:17 PM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Jeff.  Although your comments and Steve’s are helpful, I am pretty
> sure the public comments on Standing IRT were based on the notion we all
> understand as setting up an IRT prior to launch and then continuing that
> body through the launch process and afterward.   (I would appreciate
> clarifying comments from others as to their understanding.)  Coming up with
> another name for the Standing IRT  “post public comment period” does not
> necessarily make up for that, though it could be helpful in the follow-up
> public comment period for limited topics.
>
>
>
> It would also help a lot if you could explain very simply what you think
> is “outside the jurisdiction” of the Working Group:
>
>
>
> 1. Is it supposedly outside our jurisdiction to recommend to GNSO Council
> that an IRT be constituted?
>
>
>
> 2. Is it supposedly outside our jurisdiction to recommend IRT involvement
> with the revised AGB before it is published?  (I think most WG participants
> would be expecting this involvement.)
>
>
>
> 3. . Is it supposedly outside our jurisdiction to recommend that the IRT
> be tasked with helping determine which “change requests” should be subject
> to public comment?  (In that case, we might have to consider the issue of
> which change requests should require public comment in the Working Group
> itself.  Here, the IRT solution seems preferable given our timeline.)
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, these questions become necessary since they are basic
> procedural issues underlying the assumptions made in all of our WG
> recommendations.    We all need to be on the same page as to how
> “Implementation Guidance” will be used and whether or not there will be
> “checks and balances” that normally operate within a system where staff is
> consulting with a broadly representative IRT prior to launch and during the
> drafting of the revised AGB.
>
>
>
> Anne
>
>
>
> *From:* Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, March 29, 2019 9:50 AM
> *To:* Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com
> >
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Our Policy Work and a subsequent PDP
> Implementation Review Team
>
>
>
> *[EXTERNAL]*
> ------------------------------
>
> 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)?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1751+Pinnacle+Drive%0D%0A+%0D%0A+Suite+600,+McLean+%0D%0A+VA+22102,+USA&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1751+Pinnacle+Drive%0D%0A+%0D%0A+Suite+600,+McLean+%0D%0A+VA+22102,+USA&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> *Jeff Neuman*
>
> Senior Vice President
>
>
>
>
> *Com Laude | Valideus *1751 Pinnacle Drive
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1751+Pinnacle+Drive%0D%0A+%0D%0A+Suite+600,+McLean+%0D%0A+VA+22102,+USA&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Suite 600, McLean
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1751+Pinnacle+Drive%0D%0A+%0D%0A+Suite+600,+McLean+%0D%0A+VA+22102,+USA&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> VA 22102, USA
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1751+Pinnacle+Drive%0D%0A+%0D%0A+Suite+600,+McLean+%0D%0A+VA+22102,+USA&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
>
> M: +1.202.549.5079
>
> D: +1.703.635.7514
>
> E: *jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>*
> 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
> Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc.
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <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>
> *Cc:* 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> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> 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/20190329/877190e2/attachment.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list