Dear Avr
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
>