Dear Avri Greetings. If there is any way I can help to draft a statement to the board before the 28th please let me know. Yours Klais -----Original Message----- From: Carl Smith Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 11:23 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The Board, IGO entitlement to special protections and 28 Feb Thanks Avri, This is disturbing news. Hope you can get a quorum of the brainy people in the group to create a sound response. I wish I was thirty years younger. Looking forward to discussions. Best Lou On 2/13/2013 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > During yesterday's meeting we discussed the irem on the g-cpuncil agenda > pertaining to special protection for IGO, given the deadline of 28 Feb for > Board consideration of yet another preemptive assignment of an entitlement > to protection, as was done for the RCRC and IOC. > > It appears that Thomas is planning to suggest that the GNSO support a > decision by the Board granting entitlements to IGO names as suggest by the > GAC. > > Unfortunately Evan and I were the only one to speak out agains the board > making the decisions at this time because: > > A. it is not the same as the RCRC/IOC case since a PDP is ongoing and this > prejudices that work > B. It is not an emergency > > But Alan, the IOC and the Greg Shatan (IGO) spoke in favor of getting this > new entitlement as soon as possible, so the recommendation from Thomas > will be for the creation of the new entitlements, once again preempting > the rule of PDP. > > Note: Alan also suggested that if we don't like this or the previous > RCRC/IOC entitlement decision, we should file a reconsideration. For > once, I agree with him. > > I would also note that no one from the RrSg or RySG ventured an opinion. > > At this point we have, perhaps, until 28 Feb to file a statement rejecting > yet another attack against the Rule of PDP. Should we be working on one? > > Also should we file a request for reconsideration of the previous decision > on RCRC and IOC? I am less sure about this because since there was no PDP > in process at the time. While the best thing for the Board to have done > would have been to request a PDP, there was no rule that barred them from > the making a preemptive decision as they did. Yes it is against the pubic > interest in that it erodes the confidence in the ICANN and its processes, > but it is not prevented by the bylaws. > > avri >