On 23 Feb 2012, at 08:52, [log in to unmask] wrote:

> A couple of strategic questions/suggestions for Joy and KK, with apologies in advance for any jaded cynicism that may creep in after too much time in "ICANN-land":
> 
> - this is a drafting team (DT) formed by the GNSO to formulate an appropriate response to the GAC request, right? If so, don't some of the options and the current request to extend protection to all languages (1) exceed implementation details and go into policy;

yes

> which (2) is beyond the remit of a DT?

yes

But then again they are repsonding to a Board again that was outside its remit - unilaterally putting new 'reserved' names in the AGB

> 
> - even if the DT by rough consensus presents one final recommendation to the Council, it is always helpful (as Chuck has noted) to give background. This is where the final report/document is helpful. Other reports from other groups have indicated where there was Full Consensus, Rough Consensus, Strong Opposition etc. Is this an option for this DT?

It would be.  but they might say that is only for WG, and we created a DT so that we would not have to be bound by any guideline.

> 
> - NCUC has in the past also submitted a written minority report on recommendations (e.g. the GNSO's 2007 final report on new gTLDs). Depending on the outcome of the DT's discussion, this could be another option.
> 


A really good idea.  That is one I am willing to help with as long as it is a pull no punches document that starts with the inappropriate Board actions and goes on from there.

BTW, a suggestion in 3 parts for a Board/NCSG discussion topic.

1. By what bylaw given capability did BoardStaff decide to go around PDP rules and require Thick Whois
2. By what bylaw given capability did the BoardStaff decide to create new reserved names without a PDP
3. Are 1&2 indications that the Board no longer feels itself bound by PDP rules.

Also I like the International Organization topic as well.

avri