[At-Large] R: GNSO Council
roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com
Sun Nov 18 16:36:29 UTC 2012
Just as a funny note on a serious issue - if you go to the transcript of the
decision Jonathan Robinson - Chair - is reported to have said: "So I think
that's the poison that we have to take", while he (obviously) said " So I
think that's the position that we have to take", as can be clearly heard on
The question is how we do get out of this problem. The GNSO Council will
reconvene in December, a vote by the Board is expected in January.
Is there any way we can come to a position on the Council that will not
result in a vote count and a motion passing by one vote?
While this matter is on the capable hands of the GNSO Council, we have to be
aware that at the end of the day it will end up upon the Board, who needs to
rule either by giving the exception to IOC/RC that the GAC wants or to give
a rock solid argument for not to.
My question is, can ALAC propose a compromise position? Can we work, for
instance, on these points:
- a PDP will have to be set, which honors the principle that policy is made
bottom-up and not by lobbying the Board
- while the PDP is running business is run as usual, i.e. no block on
registrations will be in effect, knowing that the result of the PDP might
result in cancellation of the registrations (if any have become effective in
the meantime), which honors the principle that you cannot change the status
quo while the decision process is running
This is very much what Volker Greimann (Registrar Stakeholder Group) is
proposing, so it might not be just an isolated voice. Alan has participated
to the Council discussions, so he might bring more light to the issue.
Da: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Evan
Inviato: domenica 18 novembre 2012 17:02
A: At-Large Worldwide
Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] GNSO Council
I agree with Adam.
It is the Board's massive tactical error in brinksmanship to have forced an
"all or none" approach to the IOC and Red Cross, in which case the answer
was "if that is the only choice, then the answer is 'none' ".
In so easily bowing to pressure from lobbyists and the GAC above the
interests of the rest of the community, ICANN's Board has circumvented any
thoughtful conversation on how to protect non-trademark names in the public
interest. It bears complete responsibility for the embarrassment it has
already brought upon the organization in this regard.
On 18 November 2012 10:12, Roberto Gaetano
<roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>wrote:
> Any comment to the recent GNSO Council vote about not granting
> temporary protection to IOC/RC? Am I the only one who thinks that the
> next Board meeting will be hot (and potentially embarrassing)?
> Just for the record, I believe that Volker's proposed (but not
> accepted) amendment could be the basis for a compromise solution -
> while at the same time I maintain the point that we should not open
> the door to different categories of future reservations other than
> those already included in the guidelines until a PDP produces a
> df (interesting to understand the issue Jonathan is facing before
> deciding that the vote was valid)
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Em: evan at telly dot org
At-Large mailing list
At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
More information about the At-Large