Sala, one question. You end one paragraph with "It follows that any 
variations to Registry Agreements require the activation of a Policy 
Development Process (PDP)."

Can you explain how "it follows"? Reserved names are one of the 
things in signed registry agreements that are subject to Consensus 
Policy created by a PDP (colloquially called "within the picket 
fence"), but in this case we are talking about a draft registry 
agreement that is not yet in force and is explicitly prefixed with 
the notice that ICANN may make changes prior to it being used.

Alan

At 23/09/2012 07:13 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>Dear Alan,
>
>I sent the wrong version. Please ignore the previous one. This is 
>the correct version that I meant to send and they are still Draft 
>Submissions but enough to see the rationale of where I basing my arguments.
>
>Kind Regards,
>Sala
>
>On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro 
><<mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com>salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> 
>wrote:
>Dear Alan,
>
>Here are my draft Submissions, I have sent it to APRALO for 
>feedback. I have yet to complete them as you can see but they show 
>the reasons why I suggest a PDP is crucial and vital although I 
>argue that the exception  that has its legacy from the GAC Proposal 
>should be further narrowed.
>
>Kind Regards,
>Sala
>
>On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro 
><<mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com>salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> 
>wrote:
>
>
>On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
>If you are talking about the Issue Report on considering grranting 
>protecttion to all IGOs, that the Issue Report has not yet been 
>posted. There was a Preliminary Issue Report. The pointer is filed 
>under Recently Closed Public Comment Periods on the main ICANN web 
>site. The specific pointer for this one is 
><http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04jun12-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04jun12-en.htm 
>.
>
>I am not after the Preliminary Issues Report (PIR) but the Final 
>Issues Report which is mentioned within the PIR.
>
>Although input from the ALAC is virtually always solicited on any 
>GNSO activity, since this was a formal Public Comment Period (as is 
>required by ICANN Bylaws), we were certainly able to comment and in 
>fact did. All comments are accessible through the above pointer.
>
>If you are talking about the specific case of protection for the RC 
>and IOC names, that is not a PDP and there is no Issue Report. I 
>have been a participant in the drafting team charged with looking at 
>the issue, and anyone else who chose to could have participated as well.
>
>
>
>Alan
>
>
>
>At 19/09/2012 05:25 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>>Alan,
>>
>>I had sent you my preliminary thoughts and will send you my 
>>submissions later. Do you have the  link for the Issues Report that 
>>was developed following the GNSO Council Resolution? Is the request 
>>for feedback from the ALAC part of the development of the Issues 
>>Report? I am guessing it is the latter but need you to confirm.
>>
>>This will help us in submitting our analysis and feedback.
>>
>>Kind Regards
>>
>>On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Alan Greenberg 
>><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote:
>>I apologize for the length of this note, but it is necessary to fully
>>brief you on an issue that we must come to closure on.
>>The GNSO Red Cross/IOC Drafting Team has narrowed down the options
>>for possible recommendation to the GNSO and has pout out a Consensus
>>Call with replies due on September 26. I propose that this be
>>discussed on our list prior to the ALAC meeting on September 25th,
>>and that a decision be reached at that meeting to allow me to report
>>back to the DT at its meeting the following day.
>>I specifically ask that all ALAC members who will not be able to
>>attend the meeting next week make their views known prior to the meeting.
>>Note that this proposed recommendation seems to generally be in line
>>with a motion adopted by the Board New gTLD Program Committee on
>>September 13ths, but the Drafting Team had formulated the draft
>>proposal well before that date. The gTLD Program Committee resolution
>>can be found at
>><http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13sep12-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13sep12-en.htm 
>>.
>>The proposal has two parts and is as follows.
>> >1. Whether a PDP is necessary to resolve the the RC/IOC issue. My
>> >personal position is that a PDP is not needed to resolve the issue
>> >for the first round. A PDP is needed for any following round. A PDP
>> >is being considered on the larger IGO issue (which include as a
>> >subset the RC/IOC), but it is not yet clear that the GNSO Council
>> >will proceed with it (highly likely in my mind). Since it is quite
>> >likely that there will be a PDP, but that it will not be complete
>> >prior to the first new gTLDs being deployed, the 2nd part of this
>> >proposal only makes sense if that PDP does proceed.
>> >
>> >2. The Second consensus call item is a proposal originally put forth
>> >by J. Scott Evans and endorsed by the Registry SG which recommends
>> >the following:
>> >
>> >2.a. Recommend a moratorium be placed on the registration of exact
>> >matches of the IOC/Red Cross names contained in the GAC
>> >recommendation of September 15, 2011 at the second level in the
>> >first round of new gTLDs pending results of the PDP covering IGO
>> >names, IOC/RC names and other international organizations.  This
>> >would provide a back stop if the PDP does not finish in time and
>> >would also eliminate the argument that the GNSO is just choosing
>> >this approach as a way of avoiding the issue.
>> >
>> >2.b. Communicate to the GAC:
>> >
>> >2.b.i.   That the GNSO recommends a PDP be initiated as soon as
>> >possible to cover IGO names, IOC/RC names any other international
>> >organizations.
>> >
>> >2.b.11.  A rationale for that position with a particular emphasis on
>> >pointing out the things that could be accomplished via a PDP and
>> >that would be difficult to adequately do so otherwise.
>> >
>> >2.b.iii. That the GNSO welcomes feedback from the GAC as soon as
>> >possible on this position.
>> >
>> >2.b.iv.  That sincere efforts will be made to expedite the PDP; note
>> >that the work that has already been done on this issue should
>> >facilitate the process.
>>I recommend that the ALAC support this recommendation as I have
>>qualified it above.
>>The rationale is as follows:
>>- in the longer term, it makes sense that such a major issue such as
>>protection of IGO (and possible other names such as charities) be
>>done under the auspices of a PDP. This is an issue that has come up
>>before. The last time in 2007, the specific question was the creation
>>of a dispute resolution process that could be used by IGO (since the
>>UDRP is for trademarks, it does not apply). Ultimately, after a LOT
>>of work was done, the GNSO Council chose not to do any further work
>>on this, with the understanding that for new gTLDs, the IGO issue
>>would be incorporated into the plans. It was not. If the issue is not
>>definitively dealt with now, it will simply come back again. And no
>>doubt sooner than the 4 years it took to return this time.
>>- If we allow the status quo to stand and the RC/IOC names are not
>>protected at the 2nd level as new gTLDs are deployed, AND if
>>ultimately a PDP decides that the RC and IOC names SHOULD be
>>protected at the 2nd level, there will be no practical way to call
>>back any names that have been registered in the interim, certainly
>>not until they expire. As a result, these organization will have been
>>impacted unreasonably. At the very least, they would have to do
>>significant defensive registrations. On the other hand, if the names
>>are protected and the PDP judges that they do not deserve this
>>protection, the names can easily be released at that time.
>>- In recent statements, the ALAC has been more sympathetic with the
>>case of the Red Cross than with the IOC. However, the two are firmly
>>linked at this time (although they could be delinked in a future
>>PDP), so the only way to offer protection to the RC is to do it to
>>both organizations.
>>- The recommendation is about as conservative as it could be given
>>that the organizations wanted protection for a far wide range of
>>languages than was originally requested in the GAC letter
>>( https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2011-09-14-IOCRC-1). And of
>>course it is exact matches only and not the more flexible protection
>>that they would prefer.
>>Although not a rationale for doing this, it should be noted that if
>>the GNSO either makes no recommendation or takes a more rigid
>>position that no additional protections should be granted, it is
>>likely (in my opinion) that the Board will do something of this sort
>>anyway, creating a very time-and energy-consuming issue with no real benefit.
>>_______________________________________________
>>ALAC mailing list
>><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>ALAC Working Wiki: 
>><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) 
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>P.O. Box 17862
>Suva
>Fiji
>
>Twitter: @SalanietaT
>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>Fiji Cell: <tel:%2B679%20998%202851>+679 998 2851
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>P.O. Box 17862
>Suva
>Fiji
>
>Twitter: @SalanietaT
>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>Fiji Cell: <tel:%2B679%20998%202851>+679 998 2851
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>P.O. Box 17862
>Suva
>Fiji
>
>Twitter: @SalanietaT
>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>Fiji Cell: <tel:%2B679%20998%202851>+679 998 2851
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>P.O. Box 17862
>Suva
>Fiji
>
>Twitter: @SalanietaT
>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
>
>Content-Type: application/pdf;
>         name="Draft Response to ALAC GNSO Liaison IOC RCRC 24.9.12.pdf"
>Content-Disposition: attachment;
>         filename="Draft Response to ALAC GNSO Liaison IOC RCRC 24.9.12.pdf"
>X-Attachment-Id: f_h7grjh421