I think we should consider both Heather!I think Rubens first suggestion on a GNSO comment, in view of the new early engagement of the GAC in the GNSO process, is valid on its own for GNSO derived policies. Even if its only for future cases, the Board should consider in its evaluation phase if a GNSO policy issue has already been discussed between GAC and the GNSO in previous stages.Then, of course, your suggestion to ask other SO/ACs should be pursued ASAP.Safe travels to allCarlos Raúl Gutiérrez
ISOC Costa Rica Chapter
skype carlos.raulg
+506 8837 7176
________
Apartado 1571-1000
COSTA RICAOn Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> wrote:Thank you, Rubens. I wasn't aware of this- anyone else?
If you all agree, I think this would be a worthwhile thing to raise when I meet with the other SOAC chairs tomorrow.
Best wishes,
HeatherOn 08/03/2018 4:47 PM, "Rubens Kuhl" <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:______________________________It seems that Board decided to detail how they plan to handle GAC advice:As another registry mentioned, "Curious how there is nothing in the new process about consulting the rest of the community if the GAC Advice overlaps with, is inconsistent with, or otherwise also falls into the jurisdiction of, other SOs or ACs."That lacks, for instance, the usual comments from GNSO regarding advice overlapping with GNSO Policy, either existent or in the pipeline.Do we want to make a GNSO Council comment ? Or perhaps including other SOs and ACs ?Rubens_________________
council mailing list
council@gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council@gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council@gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council