Re: [council] Board resolution on IOC / RC

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you Mason for articulating what I believe to be a discrepancy in the 
Board's various recent inputs to this issue.

I look forward to seeing the IOC/RC DT's response on how they would seek to 
react to this discrepancy, and possible recommendations to the Council on this.

Thanks,

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM NetNames France
----------------
Registry Relations and Strategy Director
NetNames
T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51
F: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61


Le 28 sept. 2012 à 23:19, Mason Cole a écrit :

> 
> Councilors --
> 
> In reviewing the IOC/RC issue in preparation for Toronto, the Board's 
> activity on the IOC/RC issue prompts a question I'd like the IOC/RC team to 
> consider asking the Board.
> 
> Specifically, in its recently published rationale behind the decision to not 
> follow council advice on IOC/RC protection at the top level, the Board said 
> it believed sufficient protections were already in place and thus there was 
> no reason to seek a change to the guidebook.  The Board, to my knowledge, has 
> not given an opinion on whether or not existing (to be implemented) 
> second-level protections are equally sufficient.
> 
> Their language suggests an opinion of sorts, by saying:
> 
> "Whereas, the Board favors a conservative approach, that restrictions on 
> second-level registration can be lifted at a later time, but restrictions 
> cannot be applied retroactively after domain names are registered."
> 
> Though the Board says it's not seeking to influence policy work, it does seem 
> to convey a preference in the outcome of the IOC/RC work.  I find that 
> troubling.
> 
> Further, considering the difficult timing of the publication of the last set 
> of rationale, perhaps the drafting team could ask the Board if the new gTLD 
> committee or staff have carried out any review of second-level protections 
> (as they did for top-level).  If so making those findings known to us during 
> deliberation would save us time and work.
> 
>