March 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC
by Neuman, Jeff March 11, 2012

March 11, 2012

Konstantinos, The correspondence yesterday was the same correspondence we have had for months. Lets not jump to any conclusions because of the statements of a VERY small minority of GAC members. Remember, the GAC cannot change course without a consensus of the GAC. If the Chair, the US, the EU and others object to changing course within the GAC, then the GAC cannot by its very definition of consensus change course. Lets not make more of this issue than it is at this point. Plus, remember, if the GAC were to change course, we could always say no. And yes, there is a rationale to treat the IOC and Red Cross differently than the other OECD organizations (according to the GAC). The GAC letter explained that and it was reiterated by Greg in his insightful e-mail. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk] Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 8:27 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Neuman, Jeff; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Gregory Shatan; gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org; 'council(a)gnso.icann.org' Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC Dear all, I am speaking without being present in yesterday's meeting so I can only comment on what I am reading from the email thread. Although I do appreciate the argument that the official GAC position has not changed (meaning there is not a follow-up 'official' letter from Heather asking for a change of course) the fact that we heard various GAC members expressing reservations and the potential implications of such protections should certainly be taken on board. This is significant as it manifests that the GAC might not be speaking as one voice in this issue; at the very minimum, these are new considerations that the DT should take on board. At the same time, we certainly cannot underestimate the letter that came from the OECD. What appeared to be just a possibility, it now appears that it is very likely that once the protections for these two orgs are set, more will come and use it as a precedent to get the same amount of protection. and, one could easily argue that there is potentially a more valid claim for these orgs to have their names protected than the IOC or the Red Cross. Are we really suggesting here that the work of the IOC, for instance, is more important or valuable than that of UNESCO or WIPO? I am quite surprised with the insistence to approach this issue the same way we have been approaching it, even in light of these new developments, which I believe are significant. Thanks Konstantinos From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes(a)verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 13:54:34 +0000 To: Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>>, Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter(a)medienkomm.uni-halle.de<mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>, Gregory Shatan <GShatan(a)ReedSmith.com<mailto:GShatan@ReedSmith.com>>, "gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org>>, "'council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:'council(a)gnso.icann.org>'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC It seems to me that we would need another letter from Heather requesting a change of direction before we would consider changing course. We have based our work from the letter sent us stating the GAC request so until she as chair states that the GAC has changed their request, we should only rely on the official request we have. On a side note, I would be very bothered if the GAC changed their request significantly after we had gone to all the effort we have to be responsive to their request and would like to think they wouldn't do that. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc- dt(a)icann.org<mailto:dt@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:36 AM To: '"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'; 'Shatan, Gregory S.'; 'gnso-iocrc- dt(a)icann.org<mailto:dt@icann.org>'; 'council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:'council(a)gnso.icann.org>' Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC I do not think that this is a wise way forward. We cannot allow what a very few members of the GAC say during an open meeting to detract from our overall position and recommendations. I got a full briefing on the GAC discussion yesterday and do not believe we need to change course. We should only change our course if during today's discussion between the GAC and GNSO necessitate the need to do so. It is really not fair for us to base our actions on what a very small minority of the GAC members state. It would be like another group changing their course on what only a few few Councilors state. GAC members, like Councilors, are diverse. Simply because a small percentage of Councilors feel one way and express their views, that may not impact the view of the COuncil as a whole. Sent with Good (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 05:28 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Shatan, Gregory S.; Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org>; council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: AW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC Greogry: I hope that the OECD and other intergovernmental organizations can understand the accurate picture of the "criteria" we considered and reconsider the statements below. While we should welcome their input, a discussion that is based on a mischaracterization is only going to be a dead end. Wolfgang: This is the point. We "hope" that the OECD and other IGOs will understand. What happens if they don`t? In yesterdays GAC meeting (I was there) it became clear that there is no consensus among the GAC members. While Susan and Marc defended the position they gave us in the joint meeting, other GAC members introduced a broader view and disagreed partly with the US and the UK. The European Commission was outspoken in calling similar rights for IGOs. I respect when Susan and Marc argue, our governments are members of those organisations and the UK and the US government will not support any attempt by an IGO to call for specific rights to have the name protected in all variations (as the "four" red organisations have done this now with 100+ words and combination of words) But what will happen if the UK and the US do not have a majority in this IGO? My warning yesterday was that I see a risk that we are pulled into an endless debate over who is in a "unique position" and gets spec! ial rights and who is not. Chuck yesterday already recognized that there "could" be also a third organisaiton similar to the IOC and IRC. And what happens if there "could" be first five organisations arguing that they are "unique" and than 50? To avoid this and to react in a constructive way to the GAC/Board letters my proposal is to have very general language to strengthen the protection of names of such organisations (as IOC and IGOs) but not to mention any single organisation by name. BTW, the existing mechanisms for the protection of those names which are already in the guidebook (as early warning and others), are in my eyes sufficient enough to prevent any misuse by third parties. I do not believe that a cybersquatter will risk 200.000.00 USD to start a battle with the IOC or the IRC etc. And if the International Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO would go for .ioc they would probably consult in advance with the Olympic Committee (the other IOC is an intergovernmental treaty organisation). So it seems to me that we are in a rather theoretical debate. Lets be pragmatic and say, this is what we do for the first phase. We will review this in the light of experiences with the first phase and will come back with a! dditional language (if the existing dispute resolution mechnisms - which has not yet been tested - demonstrate too much weaknesses). And BTW this is only for the Top Level. The second level is a different issue and we will come back to the second level (where is no urgency) later. To be consistent with our position so far we can argue that yesterdays discussion within the GAC has triggered a debate within the GNSO to rethink its approach. We have in the previous months trusted UK and US and followed the GAC letter but we learned yesterday that there is no real consensus among the GAC members themselves which affects obviously also our approach. And we should not underestimate the OECD argument. And even more if you go to the letter Steve Crocker has written to the 49 member states of the African Union and read the arguments of Steve, why he rejects a special proteciton of "africa" in its variations, than we should try to be also consistent with positions taken by the chair of the board. As an African Union member state I would raise the issue why a non-governmental Committee gets special rights and why ICANN rejects this to the lagrest intergovenrmental body in Africa? Again whe should avoid to become be pulled into such an endless chain of controver! sial discussions. Thank you. Wolfgang

1 0

RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC
by Neuman, Jeff March 11, 2012

March 11, 2012

I do not think that this is a wise way forward. We cannot allow what a very few members of the GAC say during an open meeting to detract from our overall position and recommendations. I got a full briefing on the GAC discussion yesterday and do not believe we need to change course. We should only change our course if during today's discussion between the GAC and GNSO necessitate the need to do so. It is really not fair for us to base our actions on what a very small minority of the GAC members state. It would be like another group changing their course on what only a few few Councilors state. GAC members, like Councilors, are diverse. Simply because a small percentage of Councilors feel one way and express their views, that may not impact the view of the COuncil as a whole. Sent with Good (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 05:28 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Shatan, Gregory S.; Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC Greogry: I hope that the OECD and other intergovernmental organizations can understand the accurate picture of the "criteria" we considered and reconsider the statements below. While we should welcome their input, a discussion that is based on a mischaracterization is only going to be a dead end. Wolfgang: This is the point. We "hope" that the OECD and other IGOs will understand. What happens if they don`t? In yesterdays GAC meeting (I was there) it became clear that there is no consensus among the GAC members. While Susan and Marc defended the position they gave us in the joint meeting, other GAC members introduced a broader view and disagreed partly with the US and the UK. The European Commission was outspoken in calling similar rights for IGOs. I respect when Susan and Marc argue, our governments are members of those organisations and the UK and the US government will not support any attempt by an IGO to call for specific rights to have the name protected in all variations (as the "four" red organisations have done this now with 100+ words and combination of words) But what will happen if the UK and the US do not have a majority in this IGO? My warning yesterday was that I see a risk that we are pulled into an endless debate over who is in a "unique position" and gets special rights and who is not. Chuck yesterday already recognized that there "could" be also a third organisaiton similar to the IOC and IRC. And what happens if there "could" be first five organisations arguing that they are "unique" and than 50? To avoid this and to react in a constructive way to the GAC/Board letters my proposal is to have very general language to strengthen the protection of names of such organisations (as IOC and IGOs) but not to mention any single organisation by name. BTW, the existing mechanisms for the protection of those names which are already in the guidebook (as early warning and others), are in my eyes sufficient enough to prevent any misuse by third parties. I do not believe that a cybersquatter will risk 200.000.00 USD to start a battle with the IOC or the IRC etc. And if the International Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO would go for .ioc they would probably consult in advance with the Olympic Committee (the other IOC is an intergovernmental treaty organisation). So it seems to me that we are in a rather theoretical debate. Lets be pragmatic and say, this is what we do for the first phase. We will review this in the light of experiences with the first phase and will come back with additional language (if the existing dispute resolution mechnisms - which has not yet been tested - demonstrate too much weaknesses). And BTW this is only for the Top Level. The second level is a different issue and we will come back to the second level (where is no urgency) later. To be consistent with our position so far we can argue that yesterdays discussion within the GAC has triggered a debate within the GNSO to rethink its approach. We have in the previous months trusted UK and US and followed the GAC letter but we learned yesterday that there is no real consensus among the GAC members themselves which affects obviously also our approach. And we should not underestimate the OECD argument. And even more if you go to the letter Steve Crocker has written to the 49 member states of the African Union and read the arguments of Steve, why he rejects a special proteciton of "africa" in its variations, than we should try to be also consistent with positions taken by the chair of the board. As an African Union member state I would raise the issue why a non-governmental Committee gets special rights and why ICANN rejects this to the lagrest intergovenrmental body in Africa? Again whe should avoid to become be pulled into such an endless chain of controversial discussions. Thank you. Wolfgang

1 0

AW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC
by "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" March 11, 2012

March 11, 2012

Greogry: I hope that the OECD and other intergovernmental organizations can understand the accurate picture of the "criteria" we considered and reconsider the statements below. While we should welcome their input, a discussion that is based on a mischaracterization is only going to be a dead end. Wolfgang: This is the point. We "hope" that the OECD and other IGOs will understand. What happens if they don`t? In yesterdays GAC meeting (I was there) it became clear that there is no consensus among the GAC members. While Susan and Marc defended the position they gave us in the joint meeting, other GAC members introduced a broader view and disagreed partly with the US and the UK. The European Commission was outspoken in calling similar rights for IGOs. I respect when Susan and Marc argue, our governments are members of those organisations and the UK and the US government will not support any attempt by an IGO to call for specific rights to have the name protected in all variations (as the "four" red organisations have done this now with 100+ words and combination of words) But what will happen if the UK and the US do not have a majority in this IGO? My warning yesterday was that I see a risk that we are pulled into an endless debate over who is in a "unique position" and gets special rights and who is not. Chuck yesterday already recognized that there "could" be also a third organisaiton similar to the IOC and IRC. And what happens if there "could" be first five organisations arguing that they are "unique" and than 50? To avoid this and to react in a constructive way to the GAC/Board letters my proposal is to have very general language to strengthen the protection of names of such organisations (as IOC and IGOs) but not to mention any single organisation by name. BTW, the existing mechanisms for the protection of those names which are already in the guidebook (as early warning and others), are in my eyes sufficient enough to prevent any misuse by third parties. I do not believe that a cybersquatter will risk 200.000.00 USD to start a battle with the IOC or the IRC etc. And if the International Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO would go for .ioc they would probably consult in advance with the Olympic Committee (the other IOC is an intergovernmental treaty organisation). So it seems to me that we are in a rather theoretical debate. Lets be pragmatic and say, this is what we do for the first phase. We will review this in the light of experiences with the first phase and will come back with additional language (if the existing dispute resolution mechnisms - which has not yet been tested - demonstrate too much weaknesses). And BTW this is only for the Top Level. The second level is a different issue and we will come back to the second level (where is no urgency) later. To be consistent with our position so far we can argue that yesterdays discussion within the GAC has triggered a debate within the GNSO to rethink its approach. We have in the previous months trusted UK and US and followed the GAC letter but we learned yesterday that there is no real consensus among the GAC members themselves which affects obviously also our approach. And we should not underestimate the OECD argument. And even more if you go to the letter Steve Crocker has written to the 49 member states of the African Union and read the arguments of Steve, why he rejects a special proteciton of "africa" in its variations, than we should try to be also consistent with positions taken by the chair of the board. As an African Union member state I would raise the issue why a non-governmental Committee gets special rights and why ICANN rejects this to the lagrest intergovenrmental body in Africa? Again whe should avoid to become be pulled into such an endless chain of controversial discussions. Thank you. Wolfgang

1 0

Background Briefing on CWG Draft Principles
by Julie Hedlund March 10, 2012

March 10, 2012

Dear Council members, Pleased find attached the background briefing for the Draft Principles for CWGs relating to the motion on the GNSO Council's agenda for Wednesday. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund ICANN Policy Director

1 0

Re: [council] Re: Early draft: questions for our sessions with theBoard and the GAC tomorrow
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu March 10, 2012

March 10, 2012

Hi Stephane, May I suggest that the GAC question I drafted be incorporated into Mason's and Wendy's questions? For instance, there are similar themes between Wendy and my suggestions. Thanks!! Mary "Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>" <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> wrote: Councillors, My thanks to those who have already made comments or sent edits to the list I sent earlier. Here is a new version of the list, which includes those comments. I have also added the suggested Board questions to us at the end of the document. Stéphane Board Red Cross and Olympic Committee names: the GNSO is getting mixed messages from the Board and Staff. What exactly is expected of the GNSO in terms of policy development? If we send you a mtion this week, will you act on it? Presenter: Alan Greenberg WHOIS RT final report recommendation implementation: a discussion of the policy issues here versus the expectations that some may have that these recommendations could be implemented straight away. Presenter: Jeff Neuman IANA contract: can you provide any further information on this? We expect the Board will amend and submit a revised ICANN proposal that addresses what NTIA says was lacking in the first proposal. Question: will the Council need to undertake any policy development to enable the revised proposal? Presenter: Stéphane Van Gelder RAA: The Board's Dakar resolution requested an Issue Report for a PDP "as quickly as possible" to address "remaining items that may be suited for a PDP" relating to the RAA. Given that negotiations are ongoing on certain topics between ICANN staff and the Registrars Stakeholder Group, and that the Final Report on the RAA was just issued (on which the Council will be expected to act) is it the Board's expectation that the time frame and specific topics for a PDP will be dependent on the duration and outcome of the negotiations? What is the Board's view on the relationship between the scope of the topics to be negotiated directly and that for a PDP, especially as regards topics that may be considered policy matters? Presenter: Mary Wong GAC What advice can the GAC give the GNSO about the human rights impact assessment requirements of the PDP in light of the United Nations Human Rights Councils recent HRC Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet? For more background see reports about the Geneva Human Rights Council Session: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CnrqLUZ4hpEaCD_kxC0-FRTL_f8Hu_cKbxYT9fk… http://www.ccianet.org/index.asp?bid=89&BlogEntryID=224&FormID=300&catid=0 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-j-black/uns-itu-could-become-next_b_13… Presenter: Joy Liddicoat RAA: Update from registrars. Why does the GAC think pushing for Whois verification will resolve cybercrime, and will you push for the same level of verification for all TLDs worldwide, including ccTLDs? Another question (Wendy): How can the GNSO engage the GAC in discussion about the LEA recommendations, such as verification and regulations on privacy/proxy providers, so that the negotiations reflect realistic options from the viewpoint of the community? We need to have these discussions in parallel, rather than having an unacceptable agreement come back to Council and be rejected on Policy grounds. Presenter: Mason Cole General suggestion from Jonathan Robinson There are issues within each of these topics that we have grappled with and we would like to have a discussion with you on those issues. Possible questions from the Board: What will be in your view the medium-term impact of the new gTLD program on the structure of ICANN in general, and challenges it brings to the gNSO, its constituencies and policy development process. What are the potential issues and how to anticipate them?" this I s a question they would like to have all parts of the community starting to consider. Another question is: What is the view on the need for stronger protections against defensive registrations at the second level, and a shift to WHOIS data authentication at time of data submission? Resolution of conflict with NPOC. What is the Council's mid-term policy development calendar?

3 2

Question for meeting with the GAC
by Joy Liddicoat March 10, 2012

March 10, 2012

Hi Stephane: Just following up on the discussion just now, my suggested question is: What advice can the GAC give the GNSO about the human rights impact assessment requirements of the PDP in light of the United Nations Human Rights Councils recent HRC Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet? I hear your concerns about the need to be focussed and well prepared for the GAC meeting and understand the concern that other Councillors may not feel well-briefed on this issue - and that GAC members need time to consider issues if they are to respond properly. I am open to suggestions about how to raise this issue: for example, to table this as question for the GAC to respond to at the Prague meeting - so that they have time to consult and prepare a response. Or in some other manner if time allows. Kind regards Joy Liddicoat Project Coordinator Internet Rights are Human Rights www.apc.org <http://www.apc.org/>

3 2

invitation to eco reception
by Thomas Rickert March 10, 2012

March 10, 2012

Dear all, please find below an invitation by eco to all GNSO Councillors. Best, Thomas Dear Sir or Madam, eco, the Association of the German Internet Industry, kindly invites you to another reception at the upcoming 43rd ICANN meeting in Costa Rica. The reception will be an opportunity for an informal exchange of thoughts in a casual setting. Meet representatives of well-known companies in the domain industry in the relaxed atmosphere of the Pool Bar, Doubletree Cariari by Hilton. When: Monday March 12th from 8.30pm to11pm Where: At the Hotel Doubletree Cariari by Hilton, San José Welcome: Prof. Michael Rotert, Chairman eco e.V. About eco: eco – the Association of the German Internet Industry e.V., represents and promotes the interests of enterprises involved economically with the Internet. The association represents the enterprises in politics, facilitates communications between market participants and supports them in the marketing their products. With its Names & Numbers Forum, eco offers a platform for companies in the domain industry, such as registries and registrars where positions can be discussed and developed. Beyond lobbying, the eco Names & Numbers Forum regularly hosts events on current political, legal, and technical developments. We look forward to seeing you at our reception. The event is free of charge, but a registration is required by e-mail to names-numbers(a)eco.de. At the following link you find a direction: http://doubletree1.hilton.com/en_US/dt/hotel/SJODTDT-DoubleTree-by-Hilton-H… DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Cariari San José San Antonio de Belen San José 40701 Costa Rica We look forward to seeing you there! Sincerely, Prof. Michael Rotert Chairman

1 0

WG: AW: AW: WG: GNSO Council & Board
by KnobenW＠telekom.de March 10, 2012

March 10, 2012

Another board question Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Diane Schroeder [mailto:diane.schroeder@icann.org] Gesendet: Samstag, 10. März 2012 15:13 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Betreff: Re: AW: AW: WG: GNSO Council & Board Dear Wolf - sorry for the lateness but I've had two additions to the topics: Resolution of conflict with NPOC What is the Council's mid-term policy development calendar? Thank you. Diane Schroeder Director of Board Support ICANN

1 0

Background Briefing
by Brian Peck March 10, 2012

March 10, 2012

Dear All, Pleased find attached the background briefing for the the IOC/RCRC topic on the GNSO Council's agenda for Wednesday. Best regards, Brian

1 0

Re: [council] Early draft: questions for our sessions with theBoard and the GAC tomorrow
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu March 10, 2012

March 10, 2012

I'd like to revise the RAA question to the Board and suggest one on the topic for the GAC: Board - The Board's Dakar resolution requested an Issue Report for a PDP "as quickly as possible" to address "remaining items that may be suited for a PDP" relating to the RAA. Given that negotiations are ongoing on certain topics between ICANN staff and the Registrars Stakeholder Group, and that the Final Report on the RAA was just issued (on which the Council will be expected to act) is it the Board's expectation that the time frame and specific topics for a PDP will be dependent on the duration and outcome of the negotiations? What is the Board's view on the relationship between the scope of the topics to be negotiated directly and that for a PDP, especially as regards topics that may be considered policy matters? GAC - On the RAA negotiations, the ICANN Board passed a resolution in Dakar requesting a GNSO Issue Report for a PDP "as quickly as possible" regarding "remaining items suited for a PDP". The Report has been completed, and the GNSO Council will be expected to discuss it and possibly act on it. To assist us in evaluating whether and how to conduct a PDP, can the GAC give us some sense of how they believe the RAA process is going, and what they believe remains necessary to address? All edits and suggestions are welcome. Rejection is okay too " I'll live :} Cheers Mary "Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>" <wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: Sub-question to the GAC discussion on RAA: How can the GNSO engage the GAC in discussion about the LEA recommendations, such as verification and regulations on privacy/proxy providers, so that the negotiations reflect realistic options from the viewpoint of the community? We need to have these discussions in parallel, rather than having an unacceptable agreement come back to Council and be rejected on Policy grounds. --Wendy On 03/10/2012 02:37 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: > Board > > Red Cross and Olympic Committee names: the GNSO is getting mixed messages from the Board and Staff. What exactly is expected of the GNSO in terms of policy development? If we send you a mtion this week, will you act on it? > > Presenter: Alan Greenberg > > > > WHOIS RT final report recommendation implementation: a discussion of the policy issues here versus the expectations that some may have that these recommendations could be implemented straight away. > > Presenter: Jeff Neuman > > > > IANA contract: can you provide any further information on this? > > Presenter: Stéphane Van Gelder > > > > RAA: under what circumstances will the Board request the GNSO initiate a PDP on this topic? > > Presenter: Mary Wong > > > > > > GAC > > What are the GAC member's view on The PDP process includes a specific component to ensure freedom of expression. > > Presenter: Joy Liddicoat > > > > RAA: Update from registrars. Why does the GAC think pushing for Whois verification will resolve cybercrime, and will you push for the same level of verification for all TLDs worldwide, including ccTLDs? > > Presenter: Mason Cole > Sub-question: How can the GNSO engage the GAC in discussion about the LEA recommendations, such as verification and regulations on privacy/proxy providers, so that the negotiations reflect realistic options from the viewpoint of the community? > > > > General suggestion from Jonathan Robinson > > There are issues within each of these topics that we have grappled with and we would like to have a discussion with you on those issues. -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/

1 0