Thanks Marie. Agree with your observations, but I think my question was even more basic: The question I have about the language “Acknowledging participation to similar efforts outside of the ICANN Community” Is whether it means 1. Acknowledging in connection with similar efforts outside the ICANN community the work that is being done (or has been done) inside the ICANN community OR 2. Acknowledging within Council the work the Councilor is doing with similar efforts outside the ICANN community. This may just be a simple question to whoever drafted this language but the intent is not clear to me. I think Sebastien commented that this is about transparency. So now I’m wondering which way the “acknowledgment” obligation runs. (Again, I don’t have anything to “acknowledge” either way but am simply interested in the obligation being clearly stated.) The points you raise could also impact the commitment not to “relitigate” matters within the ICANN Community. For example, could comments on the SSAD – stating that it is too expensive and wouldn’t be used by the intended user be interpreted as “relitigating” EPDP Consensus? What if a particular SO or AC voted “no” on a recommendation and intends to provide direct advice to the Board on that point? Does the obligation not to “relitigate” mean that a Councilor cannot support his or her SO or AC in its direct advice to the Board because that would amount to “relitigating” the issue? Thanks all, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel AAikman@lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman@lewisroca.com> D. 520.629.4428 [cid:image004.png@01D8DC9F.6267A4E0] From: Marie Pattullo - AIM <marie.pattullo@aim.be> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2022 11:42 AM To: Sebastien@registry.godaddy; McGrady, Jr., Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lewisroca.com> Cc: COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG Subject: RE: GNSO Council Member Commitments [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hi all, Looking forward to talking to the small team soon. I’ve just been reading through the document again and I see Anne’s/Paul’s point – my role as a BC councillor is to represent the BC in the GNSO; it doesn’t preclude me from advocating on behalf of my (day job) members in any other fora, and of course neither could it. In other words, our role as councillors doesn’t supersede our role as employees! If there is an agreement in Council with which either the BC or my day-job employer disagree, I will of course tell both of them what happened in Council and explain the reasoning, but that absolutely doesn’t “tie my hands” as it were in pursuing the interests/instructions of my (day job) members. I think this may be open to misinterpretation/ over-reach. Thanks, Marie From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Sebastien--- via council Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2022 18:22 To: McGrady, Jr., Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> Cc: COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG<mailto:COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG> Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Member Commitments Hi Paul, Hi Anne, thank you for your question and welcome to the GNSO, The idea is not to preclude anyone from doing anything, but to promote disclosure for transparency’s sake. In your example, as ICANN does not concern itself with content censorship (bar the agreed types of DNS Abuse), work on the topic in other forums should have no impact on ICANN’s work. I would not warrant any sort of disclosure. On the contrary on a topic that is more core to ICANN, like the processing of personal data, I would want to encourage that transparency. This is not to say that one can’t be in disagreement with the consensus and voice it in the community or outside, as long as it is done acknowledging and respecting the existing consensus; but I think that should one actively pursuing competing policy efforts elsewhere, it should be acknowledged. This said, I do understand that acting as counsel, one is not always either representing the same interest or able to disclose who they represent, and I respect it – I believe separate work on the SOI is attempting to clarify this aspect. I hope this helps, Kindly Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager [signature_3325382680] +33612284445 France & Australia sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> From: McGrady, Jr., Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> Date: Tuesday, 30 August 2022 at 2:05 pm To: Sebastien Ducos <Sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:Sebastien@registry.godaddy>> Cc: COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG<mailto:COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG> <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman@lewisroca.com>> Subject: RE: GNSO Council Member Commitments Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad@. Thanks Seb. Inbound NomCom appointed Councilor, Anne Aikman-Scalese, raised concerns about the vagueness of the following phrase “Acknowledging participation to similar efforts outside of the ICANN Community.” What do we think this means? I think it means that while we should support consensus where it landed within ICANN, that doesn’t mean that we can’t press on the same subject in other forum. For example, if the current consensus that ICANN is not to be in the content censorship business holds, that does not preclude a Councilor from complaining to the FTC that someone is using content to defraud end users. Is that what everyone else thinks this phrase means? If not, maybe we can have some alternative theories on the list or in the document. Best, Paul Taft / Paul D. McGrady, Jr. Partner PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Dir: 312.836.4094 | Cell: 312.882.5020 Tel: 312.527.4000 | Fax: 312.754.2354 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713 Download vCard<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.taftlaw...> taftlaw.com<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.taftlaw...> This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Sebastien--- via council Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 5:08 AM To: COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG<mailto:COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG> Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Member Commitments [EXTERNAL MESSAGE] Sincere apologies Stephanie.It is of course to you and not to Nathalie, that I meant to address this. Kindly, Sebastien DucosGoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager+33612284445France & Australiasebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:Australiasebastien@registry.godaddy> From:Sebastien Ducos <Sebastien@registry.g <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fus.report....> Sincere apologies Stephanie. It is of course to you and not to Nathalie, that I meant to address this. Kindly, Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager [signature_3120129129] +33612284445 France & Australia sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> From: Sebastien Ducos <Sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:Sebastien@registry.godaddy>> Date: Tuesday, 30 August 2022 at 10:33 am To: COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG<mailto:COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG> <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: GNSO Council Member Commitments Hello Nathalie, Marie and Paul, Thank you for volunteering to assist with the “GNSO Council Member Commitments” last week. The Google Doc we put up following ICANN 74 is still accessible here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rmft4PPLzFB0rE9IWEi86eMZYrlgDaXT/edit<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1rmft4PPLzFB0rE9IWEi86eMZYrlgDaXT%2Fedit&data=05%7C01%7Csebastien%40registry.godaddy%7C5b29d96a2c6642b9bda108da8a7fe4ac%7Cd5f1622b14a345a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637974579175330205%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=UnspMK1nLYUGymI6goIuM15KtoHUnUg29dy6GOoTO3M%3D&reserved=0> I’ll let you take a first stab at it for a week until 6 September COB. Depending on the level of rewrite then, we might organise a call to sort it out or do it via email. All other Councillors are of course invited to participate, the document is open. Kindly, Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager [signature_3763393680] +33612284445 France & Australia sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
