ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] IOC/RC

  • To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] IOC/RC
  • From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 17:47:17 -0400
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: en-US
  • In-reply-to: <8678A3A0-ECB8-4A08-A28B-3F86BA308B36@indom.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <8678A3A0-ECB8-4A08-A28B-3F86BA308B36@indom.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Ac0u5kyLKmUwF9WvS/W/17jHHw9HOwADtanQ
  • Thread-topic: [council] IOC/RC

I disagreed with Mary's suggestion on the chat and continue to for a number of 
reasons.  First, implicit in Mary's note is the notion that the Council has 
made the decision to abandon the Drafting Team approach, which is a notion I 
only advocated by the NCSG on the call.

Second, it sends the wrong message to the current Drafting Team and will make 
it next to impossible for the Drafting Team to get any work done between now 
and Prague.  They will not want to do any work on the second level issues as 
they will believe that doing such work would be a waste of their time (Since 
the GNSO as a whole is "continuing to work" on the issue).  That feeling has 
already been expressed by several members of the DT (prior to the GNSO Council 
call).  There is a strong belief that any future work will be a waste of their 
volunteer time.

So, if we actually expect the DT to keep working on a response, which was what 
I clearly heard on the call, then let's just state that the Drafting Team is 
continuing to work on the issue and will provide its recommendations back to 
the GNSO Council.  If on the other hand the GNSO as a whole is willing to get 
on calls every two weeks and really work in earnest on the response, then I am 
fine with the message Mary suggests and I expect to see you all on the call 
next Wednesday as scheduled.   I am fine with taking either approach...the 
Drafting Team works on it, or the GNSO as a whole works on its.  But we can't 
just state that the GNSO as a whole is working on it, and then it turns out no 
one actually does.


Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:50 PM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] IOC/RC


As discussed during today's call, I would like to ask the Council for clear 
direction on what next steps to take on the IOC/RC DT.

You will recall that on the call I suggested that we instruct the DT to 
continue its work and that a short message be sent to the GAC.

Mary had the following suggestion on the call:

Mary Wong: @Stephane, in view of the apparent confusion over the DT issue, can 
you respond to the GAC simply stating what the DT has done to date and 
indicating that the GNSO as a whole is continuing to work on the second level 
issue without specifically mentioning that the DT will be the group doing the 
work? And then including that question on the agenda for our next mtg?

Please add to this discussion so that we can determine what our next steps 
should be.


Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
Head of Domain Operations
Group NBT

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>