I agree with the two statements in Avri's position On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > BTW, anyone who is interested in the other replies can follow the list at: > <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-iocrc-dt/> > I think the opinion from the group will be divided. > > (-: so much for my obvious remark of the day) > > avri > > On 2 May 2012, at 12:44, Robin Gross wrote: > > > Thanks for bringing this issue to the attention of the membership. I > agree with your approach that this group should document its work, but not > try to attempt any further recommendations. The council will deliberate > the issue and if a pdp on the issue is go forward, it should be done > through a legitimate policy development process, not this ad hoc anything > goes group consisting of mostly IOC lobbyists and supporters. If policy > recommendations are to be made, they should be done through a legitimate > process. > > > > Best, > > Robin > > > > > > On May 2, 2012, at 8:38 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > >> I would like to get NCSG view on my personal response. > >> I expect this is an issue that belongs on the upcoming NCSG policy > discussion. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> > >> Begin forwarded message: > >> > >>> From: Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> > >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: CALL CANCELLATION: Meeting > Invitation/GAC/GNSO issues related to International Olympic Committee (IOC) > & Red Cross (RC) names discussion group > >>> Date: 2 May 2012 11:34:49 EDT > >>> To: [log in to unmask] > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> My personal view is sort of hybrid. > >>> > >>> I think that this group should not produce any further recommendations > but should finish up by documenting what it has done. The documentation > that came out with the recommendations was, I understand, incomplete. I > think it would be a pity to waste all those volunteer hours, especially > those that could have been lucrative billable hours, without producing a > coherent synthesis that shows all sides of the work the group did. > >>> > >>> I also think, as always when there is a communication from another of > the SOAC entities, that the g-council owes a response to the GAC that > points to the report of work done, describes the process ahead with PDP > etc, and that invites GAC members to participate in that PDP's WG when it > gets going. > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> On 2 May 2012, at 11:11, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > >>> > >>>> All, > >>>> > >>>> I just wanted to drop a quick note explaining why I cancelled the > call for today. Over the past couple of weeks, there has been a lot of > chatter in various groups about the dismantling of our drafting team for a > variety of reasons ranging from the practical (“Lets wait until the PDP to > restructure a group like this”) to the cynical (“The Board rejected all of > the Drafting Teams recommendations and there Is nothing left for the group > to do”). Although the Drafting Team understands that the Board only dealt > with the Top Level Recommendations and that the GAC Proposal to which we > were responding has recommendations at the second level, there is still a > lot of negative chatter out there calling for this group to be abandoned. > >>>> > >>>> The GNSO Council Call will address this issue next week and decide > (hopefully) the future of this group. Before that happens, however, I > would like to know your thoughts on whether this Drafting Team should cease > it operations. From my own personal perspective (and not necessarily my > SG), I believe that although we voted in favor of commencing PDP on issues > that are related to the IOC-RC proposals, the GNSO owes a response to the > GAC on the GAC’s September 2011 proposal (the majority of which addresses > proposed second level protections). That proposal is now 8 months old and > whether this Drafting Team helps with crafting that answer or not, the GNSO > must provide a well-thought out and reasoned response. I believe it would > not be wise to ignore the proposal or to tell the GAC that we are going to > wait for the issue report to be drafted and finalized by October and then > decide whether to commence a PDP and then take a year or longer to provide > the GNSO Council response (which could be 2-3 years after the initial > proposal). > >>>> > >>>> In the end, it will not be me making this call, but rather the > Council. I believe your feedback will help inform the Council on what it > should do next week. If any of you have thoughts on this, I would be happy > to present those thoughts to the Council next week. > >>>> > >>>> I truly appreciate the work you all have done to and regardless of > what ultimately happens, I believe the work has been beneficial to the GNSO > Community. > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nathalie Peregrine > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 4:48 AM > >>>> To: [log in to unmask] > >>>> Cc: [log in to unmask] > >>>> Subject: [ntfy-gnso-iocrc-dt] CALL CANCELLATION: Meeting > Invitation/GAC/GNSO issues related to International Olympic Committee (IOC) > & Red Cross (RC) names discussion group > >>>> > >>>> Dear All, > >>>> > >>>> The next call for the GAC/GNSO issues related to International > Olympic Committee (IOC) & Red Cross (RC) names discussion group initially > scheduled for today Wednesday 02 May 2012 at 1800 UTC has now been > cancelled as per Jeff Neuman. > >>>> Details about possible future calls will follow shortly. > >>>> > >> > > > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger