Hi,

In my view I see two reasonable possibilities:

1. it blinks out of existence with applause and thanks

2. the current drafting team should mostly take a break and wait for the issues report.  Though perhaps it could help by commenting on the draft of the issues report when it comes out since the group does have so much historical record of the issues involved, though not written in any sort of coherent manner.  If the DT really wants to do something useful, it could take the time to document all of the issues they have explored to date so a future working group has a firm historical basis and their time won't have been wasted.

Then, assuming there a positive vote on the PDP - which I am assuming, it should be enlisted to suggest a charter for g-council consideration.

And then it should blink out of existence with applause and thanks

I think any notion of continuing to do forward looking work while the issues report is being created and the g-council is deciding how, according to proper PDP process to move forward, would threatened the legitimacy of future work.  It would certainly need to be work redone once the PDP commenced and we would risk a great lament about people wasting their very expense billable hours.

avri


On 28 Apr 2012, at 11:08, [log in to unmask] wrote:

> Also, as Avri and I may have posted previously, the IOC-RC Drafting Team has asked the GNSO Council for guidance as to whether and how it should continue to work on second level protections for the IOC and RC, which as you'll recall was also part of the GAC request to the GNSO back in September.
> 
> This is an agenda item for the upcoming Council meeting on 10 May. It's clear the Council needs to respond to the GAC, what we need to decide is how as well as what.
> 
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
> Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or typographical errors.
> 
> "Norbert Klein <[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Thanks, Robin, for pointing this out. So NCSG did a good job for the 
> whole of ICANN.
> 
> 
> Norbert
> 
> 
> On 4/27/2012 4:50 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> Wow!  When the ICANN Board adopted its resolution rejecting Red Cross 
>> & Olympic Committee special privileges in the DNS, they provided a 
>> Rationale 
>> <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-new-gtld-10apr12-en.htm> which 
>> was identical to what NCSG had argued during the GNSO Council Meeting 
>> when we deferred the Council's rush to adopt the privileges.
>> 
>> It is also worth noting that the ICANN Board posting these 
>> "Rationales" to explain their votes is a terrific and relatively new 
>> feature that ICANN has adopted as a result of the ATRT Recommendations.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-new-gtld-10apr12-en.htm
>> 
>>   […]
>> 
>> 
>>      GNSO Recommendation for Protection of Red Cross and
>>      International Olympic Committee Names in New gTLDs
>> 
>> The Committee discussed potential ways that it could address the 
>> GNSO Recommendation and the need to acknowledge the inputs provided by 
>> the GNSO though the Committee is not prepared to make changes to the 
>> Applicant Guidebook at this time.
>> 
>> The Committee then took the following action:
>> 
>>    Resolved (2012.04.10.NG4), the New gTLD Program Committee
>>    acknowledges receipt of the GNSO's recommendation on extending
>>    certain protections to the Red Cross/Red Crescent and the
>>    International Olympic Committee names at the top level.
>> 
>>    Resolved (2012.04.10.NG5), the New gTLD Program Committee chooses
>>    to not change the Applicant Guidebook at this time.
>> 
>> *All voting members of the Committee voted in favor of the 
>> Resolutions. The Resolutions carried.*
>> 
>> 
>>            Rationale for Resolutions 2012.04.10.NG4-2012.04.10.NG5
>> 
>>    /The Committee thanks the GNSO for its work to date on this issue.
>>    While the recommendations of the GNSO are well taken, changing the
>>    Applicant Guidebook at this time must be balanced against ICANN's
>>    commitment to accountability and transparency. The public comment
>>    "reply" period remains open on this topic through 14 April 2012,
>>    therefore any Committee action at this time – other than
>>    maintaining the status quo – could not reflect all of the inputs
>>    received on this issue. The comments received to date also
>>    demonstrate the existence of opposition to the adoption of the
>>    recommendations./
>> 
>>    /Implementation details have not been worked out to address these
>>    recommendations.In addition, a change of this nature to the
>>    Applicant Guidebook nearly three months into the application
>>    window – and after the date allowed for registration in the system
>>    – could change the basis of the application decisions made by
>>    entities interested in the New gTLD Program./
>> 
>>    /Comments received in the public comment forum also raise
>>    procedural issues with these recommendations that indicate
>>    concerns with the multi-stakeholder process utilized in this
>>    instance. While the Committee is not making a determination at
>>    this time about these procedural concerns, their existence also
>>    weighs towards maintaining the status quo at this time./
>> 
>>    /The status quo is that the Applicant Guidebook already provides
>>    several other protections available to the IOC and Red Cross for
>>    the top level, including a moratorium on the delegation of certain
>>    names at the top level in the first round of applications; an
>>    objection process which allows parties with standing to submit an
>>    objection on the grounds that an application infringes its
>>    existing legal rights; and theGAC Early Warning and Advice
>>    Processes. As protections already exist, when balanced with the
>>    accountability and operational issues posed by changing the
>>    Applicant Guidebook at this time, the public interest will be
>>    better served by maintaining the status quo.  This action is not
>>    expected to have an impact on resources, nor is it expected to
>>    have an impact on the security or the stability of theDNS./
>> 
>>    /Nothing in the Committee's action or this rationale is intended
>>    to preclude the consideration of the GNSO recommendations for
>>    future rounds of applications within the New gTLD Program./
>> 
>