<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] Board resolution on IOC / RC
- To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx List" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] Board resolution on IOC / RC
- From: Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:19:47 -0700
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|