Forwarded From: Rosemary To: Gomes, Chuck; William Drake; Glen de Saint Géry; Stéphane Van Gelder; KnobenW@telekom.de; Glen de Saint Géry; Cavalli, Olga Subject: Request to post - GAC/GNSO joint meeting Glen I think I have made the right changes - 2am here - would youpost this doc for me pls? Cheers Rosemary -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Thu 2/18/2010 1:16 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; William Drake; Glen de Saint Géry; Rosemary Sinclair; Stéphane Van Gelder; KnobenW@telekom.de; Glen de Saint Géry; Cavalli, Olga Subject: RE: Drafting team to prepare for the GAC/GNSO joint meeting Here's the redline version I sent earlier in the week. If no one objects, let's post a clean version of this and send it to the Council ASAP. Glen - Can you do that? If someone want to make changes, please do so. I am about to head to the airport so will not be able to do much for a few hours. Don't wait for me. Chuck ________________________________ From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 8:23 AM To: William Drake; Glen de Saint Géry; Rosemary Sinclair; Stéphane Van Gelder; KnobenW@telekom.de; Glen de Saint Géry; Cavalli, Olga Subject: RE: Drafting team to prepare for the GAC/GNSO joint meeting I proposed a final version and was waiting for feedback from others on this list. If you are okay with what I did, please distribute it Bill in Rosemary's absence (she is not available until Thursday her time). If not, make any changes and send it. I am traveling today and will have limited email access. Chuck ________________________________ From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 6:58 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Glen de Saint Géry; Rosemary Sinclair; Stéphane Van Gelder; KnobenW@telekom.de; Glen de Saint Géry; Cavalli, Olga Subject: Re: Drafting team to prepare for the GAC/GNSO joint meeting This is on the agenda for tomorrow's call, shouldn't we send it to the Council to see prior? 1. New gTLD Implementation &EOI Discussion of any specific and actionable recommendations on, for example: *any remaining concerns with respect to geographic & property protections *the utility of the studies proposed by the GAC, and the foreseen negative effects if they are not completed pre-launch *how categorization could work[Gomes, Chuck] I know there are some in the GAC, in particular Bertrand, who still are pushing this, but I don't think it has much of chance to be considered so I think it would be a poor use of time and could take a lot of time as well. If they bring it up, we cannot avoid that but I would not recommend we bring it up. *desirable fee structures *desired timeline for the roll out of new gTLDs I was listing topics GAC has raised as indicators of the pool from which we could draw. Obviously there won't be able to discuss all of these irrespective of whether there are two topics or three. In that context, I didn't think it was up to us to judge which we considered meritorious or likely to go anywhere, as some government might object to us pruning. But if people think doing so is ok in terms of sensitivities and optics, fine by me. 2. Affirmation of Commitments Discussion of perspectives on: *the meaning of public interest in relation to ICANN's identity and mission *the operationalization of public interest standards in relation to the work programs of ICANN's various bodies *specific accountability and transparency considerations with respect to GNSO's policy dev process 3. ICANN in the Wider International Environment Discussion of the relationship to ICANN in general and to GAC policies and principles in particular of: *the ongoing intergovernmental discussions (e.g. in the ITU and CSTD[Gomes, Chuck] what is CSTD ) The UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=2696 concerning Enhanced Cooperation on Globally Applicable Public Policy Principles *the various other proposals that have been advanced in the ITU and could be taken up by its October 2010 Plenipotentiary Conference concerning, e.g. the provision of registry services, the harmonization and coordination of ccTLD policies, internationalized domain names, the interface between international laws and treaties and Internet governance, security and stability, dispute resolution, and so on I cut nondiscrimination, that's more about traffic than ICANN Shall we send this to council and get some feedback?