Re: [council] Amendments to IOC/RCRC Motion

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I have no rights to amend the motion, but I would like to suggest the 
following amendment if anyone else is prepared to formally propose it.
The rationale is that it is now reasonably clear that:
- There may be requests to widen the concept to other international 
organizations;
- There have been recommendations that any such changes not mention 
particular organizations but be more generic;
- There is concern in the community over the overall concept;
- There is concern in the community about making permanent the Board 
Name reservation which did not have bottom-up input of community involvement.
Replace:

Recommendation 3:    Protections should apply for all future rounds, 
but may be reviewed after the first round.
            In its proposal, the GAC has recommended that the 
protections for the IOC and RCRC should not just apply during the 
first round of new gTLDs, but should be a permanent protection 
afforded for all subsequent rounds.  Although, the Drafting Team has 
not spent a lot of time discussing this topic, it does agree with the 
notion that it is making this recommendation as one intended to apply 
in all future rounds, but also recognizes that like all other aspects 
of the new gTLD program, these protections may be reviewed by the 
ICANN community should it desire to do so.
With:

Recommendation 3:   Protections should apply to the first round only.

            In light of the possible need to consider other 
international organizations or make the above recommendations more 
generic, and light of unease in parts of the committee, it is 
recommended that the above changes to the Applicant Guidebook apply 
to the first round only.

Alan


At 26/03/2012 08:42 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> All,
>
> The Drafting Team discussed possible amendments to the IOC/RCRC 
> motion last week during its regularly scheduled meeting.  I am not 
> sure if those will be proposed or not by some members of the 
> Council, so I guess we will just wait and see.  There are two 
> changes I would like to see which is more of clean-up administrative 
> changes.  Because of (i) the discussions in Costa Rica where changes 
> were made to recommendation 2 to limit the number of languages as 
> opposed to the version proposed on March 2nd, and (ii) the Board 
> already met on March 16th,  I propose making the following changes:
> First Resolved Clause
> Resolved, that the GNSO Council adopts the following three 
> recommendations from the IOC/RC Drafting Team's three 
> recommendations as described in its Proposal for the protection of 
> IOC and RCRC names at the top level as provided in 
> <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ioc-rcrc-proposal-02mar12-en.pdf>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ioc-rcrc-proposal-02mar12-en.pdf; 
> namely:
> Last Resolved Clause
> Resolved, that the GNSO submits this proposed solution for Board 
> consideration and adoption at its 16 March 2012 next meeting in 
> Costa Rica as a recommended solution to implement Board Resolution 
> 2011.06.20.01 for implementation in the first round of new gTLD applications.
> Thanks.
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
> 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
> Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: 
> +1.703.738.7965 / 
> <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx  / www.neustar.biz