+1. Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

Red Cross and IOC should never have been presented together. If Red Cross alone, expect it would have (eventually) gone forward. If it hadn't been an Olympic year, not sure the Brits would have taken as much interest.

Adam

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:

...

Any comment to the recent GNSO Council vote about not granting temporary protection to IOC/RC? Am I the only one who thinks that the next Board meeting will be hot (and potentially embarrassing)?

Just for the record, I believe that Volker's proposed (but not accepted) amendment could be the basis for a compromise solution - while at the same time I maintain the point that we should not open the door to different categories of future reservations other than those already included in the guidelines until a PDP produces a recommendation.

Cheers,

R.

http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20121115-en.mp3

http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-15nov12-en.pdf

http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/chat-transcript-council-15nov12-en.pdf (interesting to understand the issue Jonathan is facing before deciding that the vote was valid)

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

---

At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Hi Roberto, On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:

Just as a funny note on a serious issue - if you go to the transcript of the decision Jonathan Robinson - Chair - is reported to have said: "So I think that's the poison that we have to take", while he (obviously) said " So I think that's the position that we have to take", as can be clearly heard on the MP3.

OK! Another GNSO vote passed by one vote is just a reflection of (poor) house structure, not good after so much discussion. I'd see if there was interest in holding a separate vote on the red cross (etc) and IOC. Perhaps we'll find one has merits, the other not. And that might lead to less creep with other IGOs following on the IOC's tail. Adam

The question is how we do get out of this problem. The GNSO Council will reconvene in December, a vote by the Board is expected in January. Is there any way we can come to a position on the Council that will not result in a vote count and a motion passing by one vote? While this matter is on the capable hands of the GNSO Council, we have to be aware that at the end of the day it will end up upon the Board, who needs to rule either by giving the exception to IOC/RC that the GAC wants or to give a rock solid argument for not to. My question is, can ALAC propose a compromise position? Can we work, for instance, on these points: - a PDP will have to be set, which honors the principle that policy is made bottom-up and not by lobbying the Board - while the PDP is running business is run as usual, i.e. no block on registrations will be in effect, knowing that the result of the PDP might result in cancellation of the registrations (if any have become effective in the meantime), which honors the principle that you cannot change the status quo while the decision process is running This is very much what Volker Greimann (Registrar Stakeholder Group) is proposing, so it might not be just an isolated voice. Alan has participated to the Council discussions, so he might bring more light to the issue.

R.

-----Messaggio originale----- Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Evan Leibovitch Inviato: domenica 18 novembre 2012 17:02 A: At-Large Worldwide Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] GNSO Council

I agree with Adam.

It is the Board's massive tactical error in brinksmanship to have forced an "all or none" approach to the IOC and Red Cross, in which case the answer was "if that is the only choice, then the answer is 'none' ".

In so easily bowing to pressure from lobbyists and the GAC above the interests of the rest of the community, ICANN's Board has circumvented any thoughtful conversation on how to protect non-trademark names in the public interest. It bears complete responsibility for the embarrassment it has already brought upon the organization in this regard.

- Evan

On 18 November 2012 10:12, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>wrote:

...

Any comment to the recent GNSO Council vote about not granting temporary protection to IOC/RC? Am I the only one who thinks that the next Board meeting will be hot (and potentially embarrassing)?

Just for the record, I believe that Volker's proposed (but not accepted) amendment could be the basis for a compromise solution - while at the same time I maintain the point that we should not open the door to different categories of future reservations other than those already included in the guidelines until a PDP produces a recommendation.

Cheers,

R.

http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20121115-en.mp3

http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-15nov12-en.pdf

http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/chat-transcript-council-15nov12-en.p df (interesting to understand the issue Jonathan is facing before deciding that the vote was valid)

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

To make it clear for those who do not wish to review the transcript of MP3, this is what happened: - For the motion to have passed, it needed a majority of both GNSO Council houses. That is, 4 of 7 votes from the Contracted Party House (CPH) and 7 of 13 votes from the Non-contracted Party House (NCPH). - The CPH voted unanimously for the motion. - The 5 NCSG members present voted no. One NCSG member was missing with no proxy given, and that is equivalent to an abstention which counts as a no. - 4 Commercial SG members voted yes, as did the NomCom appointee to that house. The two IPC Councillors abstained (which counts as a no) - As per the GNSO rules those abstaining must provide a reason or explanation. - Prior to asking for the reasons, the Chair reminded the Councillors that an abstention counts as a no - an issue that is covered by a 6-page (!!) section of the GNSO Operating Rules and Procedures. (The chair's reminder was deemed by some after the meeting to be an attempt to affect the vote). - The first Councillor answered that he abstained because the Red Cross was a client of his. - The second Councillor, who had just been appointed and this was his first Council meeting. said that if this is how abstentions were counted, he would change his vote to yes. It is unclear if he had abstained because he thought that this was a IPC position, or if he abstained because being new, he was unfamiliar with the issue. - That still left the vote at 6 yeses, and the motion failed. - As the meeting continued, the Councillor who abstained realized or was informed that his conflict needed to be noted (which it had been in his SoI) but that it need not have stopped him from voting and ignoring the perceived conflict, he would have voted yes (Councillors from contracted parties often vote on issues in which they have a material interest - it is completely normal for the GNSO). - This was raised in the meeting, and there might have been a decision to re-hold the vote, but two of the Councillors who had voted had now left the meeting without naming a proxy, and the chair ruled that it was not proper to redo the vote under those conditions, so it held. - Although not discussed in the meeting, the Councillor who abstained had several other remedies even if his abstention had been required under the rules. The IPC could have directed his vote if that concept is in their rules, he could have named a proxy to vote on lieu of him, or he could have named an alternate person to sit in that meeting in his place. So the bottom line is that if all of the Councillors had been aware of the GNSO rules, the vote would almost surely have passed. At this point, I assume (but do not know for a fact) that the motion will be made again during the December meeting. See additional comments below. At 18/11/2012 11:36 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

Just as a funny note on a serious issue - if you go to the transcript of the decision Jonathan Robinson - Chair - is reported to have said: "So I think that's the poison that we have to take", while he (obviously) said " So I think that's the position that we have to take", as can be clearly heard on the MP3.

The question is how we do get out of this problem. The GNSO Council will reconvene in December, a vote by the Board is expected in January. Is there any way we can come to a position on the Council that will not result in a vote count and a motion passing by one vote? While this matter is on the capable hands of the GNSO Council, we have to be aware that at the end of the day it will end up upon the Board, who needs to rule either by giving the exception to IOC/RC that the GAC wants or to give a rock solid argument for not to.

Certainly anything is possible, but the Board in its September resolution, has already given a strong indication that it favours a solution very similar to the motion being discussed, that is protect the names temporarily pending the PDP. For the record, the DT recommendation was drafted before the Board motion, so presumably the Board heard about it and decided it was a good idea. It is unclear (to me) whether any explanation would be rock-solid enough for the GAC at this time. But perhaps I am just not sufficiently imaginative!

My question is, can ALAC propose a compromise position? Can we work, for instance, on these points: - a PDP will have to be set, which honors the principle that policy is made bottom-up and not by lobbying the Board

That is already ongoing (the PDP). Lobbying is of course always a possibility, and the Board does have the ability to over-rule a PDP if it is sufficiently motivated, although the effect on the community of doing so in this case would certainly be interesting.

- while the PDP is running business is run as usual, i.e. no block on registrations will be in effect, knowing that the result of the PDP might result in cancellation of the registrations (if any have become effective in the meantime), which honors the principle that you cannot change the status quo while the decision process is running

The concept of registrations being cancelled has never been discussed, and I would think it HIGHLY unlikely. In the normal course of events, the names being added to a reserved names list would likely stop them from being re-allocated if they ever expire. (Note, there are many names on the reserved names list which exist - iana.org being one.) Of course, current practice these days is that even if the current registrant drops a name, the registrar often transfers it to someone else, preventing it from dropping. That practice could be expressly forbidden in this particular case however.

This is very much what Volker Greimann (Registrar Stakeholder Group) is proposing, so it might not be just an isolated voice. Alan has participated to the Council discussions, so he might bring more light to the issue.

Not quite. What Volker has been advocating is that the names be allowed to be entered during the new TLD Sunrise period, but not actually registered. If the PDP results in recommending that the names be reserved, they could not be allocated. If the PDP allowed the names to be used, those who entered the names during the sunrise period would be given first refusal at the names. Essentially what Volker is saying is that we should protect the rights of other prospective registrants of those names (and for that matter the Red Cross and IOC) in case the PDP allows their general registration. Although I cannot speak for the DT, I suspect that this idea might have had DT support if it had ever been mentioned. Alan

R.

-----Messaggio originale----- Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Evan Leibovitch Inviato: domenica 18 novembre 2012 17:02 A: At-Large Worldwide Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] GNSO Council

I agree with Adam.

It is the Board's massive tactical error in brinksmanship to have forced an "all or none" approach to the IOC and Red Cross, in which case the answer was "if that is the only choice, then the answer is 'none' ".

In so easily bowing to pressure from lobbyists and the GAC above the interests of the rest of the community, ICANN's Board has circumvented any thoughtful conversation on how to protect non-trademark names in the public interest. It bears complete responsibility for the embarrassment it has already brought upon the organization in this regard.

- Evan

On 18 November 2012 10:12, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>wrote:

...

Any comment to the recent GNSO Council vote about not granting temporary protection to IOC/RC? Am I the only one who thinks that the next Board meeting will be hot (and potentially embarrassing)?

Just for the record, I believe that Volker's proposed (but not accepted) amendment could be the basis for a compromise solution - while at the same time I maintain the point that we should not open the door to different categories of future reservations other than those already included in the guidelines until a PDP produces a recommendation.

Cheers,

R.

http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20121115-en.mp3

http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-15nov12-en.pdf

http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/chat-transcript-council-15nov12-en.p df (interesting to understand the issue Jonathan is facing before deciding that the vote was valid)

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org