Thank you Mason for articulating what I believe to be a discrepancy in the Board's various recent inputs to this issue. I look forward to seeing the IOC/RC DT's response on how they would seek to react to this discrepancy, and possible recommendations to the Council on this. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM NetNames France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director NetNames T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51 F: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61 Le 28 sept. 2012 à 23:19, Mason Cole a écrit :
Councilors --
In reviewing the IOC/RC issue in preparation for Toronto, the Board's activity on the IOC/RC issue prompts a question I'd like the IOC/RC team to consider asking the Board.
Specifically, in its recently published rationale behind the decision to not follow council advice on IOC/RC protection at the top level, the Board said it believed sufficient protections were already in place and thus there was no reason to seek a change to the guidebook. The Board, to my knowledge, has not given an opinion on whether or not existing (to be implemented) second-level protections are equally sufficient.
Their language suggests an opinion of sorts, by saying:
"Whereas, the Board favors a conservative approach, that restrictions on second-level registration can be lifted at a later time, but restrictions cannot be applied retroactively after domain names are registered."
Though the Board says it's not seeking to influence policy work, it does seem to convey a preference in the outcome of the IOC/RC work. I find that troubling.
Further, considering the difficult timing of the publication of the last set of rationale, perhaps the drafting team could ask the Board if the new gTLD committee or staff have carried out any review of second-level protections (as they did for top-level). If so making those findings known to us during deliberation would save us time and work.