Hi all - unfortunately I missed this call this morning, but I understand that Wolfgang was present and may be able to enlighten. Below is a summary and a proposed amendment FYI. Kind regards Joy From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Thursday, 22 March 2012 8:24 a.m. To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Summary of Action Items at the Top Level All, For those of you that were unable to attend the call, you missed a good discussion where we reviewed a number of the public comments that came in thus far to the original recommendations. I asked two key questions during the call on the motion. 1. First, I asked everyone from the Drafting Team, whether, after review of the comments, their review of the comments changed their support or non-support for the recommendations submitted to the Council. 2. Second, I asked the question whether any of the Drafting Team members believed that changes could be made to the motion to address the comments that were received? On the first question, the members of the Drafting Team that were present (a list of whom will be sent around, but it did represent a good cross section), stated that their positions had not changed from the original consensus call - meaning that if they supported the recommendations before, they still supported them OR if they did not support them, they still do not support. On the second question, many of the Drafting Team members felt that the motion could be improved to address some of the comments, but not if it meant that there would be a delay on the vote of the motion. However, they reserved the right to go back to their groups to get their feedback. Below you will find a proposal by Chuck that was discussed during the call with respect to Recommendation Number 3 - to replace it with the text below. The proposal in response to the comments received is to make the review mandatory AND to address the protections in a more general fashion as opposed to calling out specifically the IOC or the RCRC. Recommendation 3: Protection must be reviewed after the first round and that review should include consideration of changing the language to general requirements rather than naming specific organizations. In its proposal, the GAC has recommended that protections for the IOC and RCRC should not just apply during the first round of new gTLDs but should be a permanent protection for all subsequent rounds. The drafting team recognizes that permanently granting protection to the IOC and RCRC may have policy implications that require more work and consultation so that protections may be reviewed. As the proposer of the motion, I asked the DT to go back to their groups to see whether these changes should be viewed as friendly or whether the changing of the recommendation would likely need further review, and thus delay. If the response is that the groups would support this as being friendly, then if proposed during the Council meeting I would accept. If, however, the group feels like this would need further comment and input, and therefore delay the motion, I would not accept as friendly. Please feel free to comment. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] / <http://www.neustar.biz/> www.neustar.biz