Thanks Paul, I’m sorry I couldn’t get this out sooner. From: policy@paulmcgrady.com [mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 4:49 PM To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>; Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: UPDATE re Item 2: For your review - GNSO Review of GAC Communique Hyderabad Thanks Donna. I have taken the proposed new language to the IPC list and hope to have feedback quickly. Best, Paul -------- Original Message -------- Subject: UPDATE re Item 2: For your review - GNSO Review of GAC Communique Hyderabad From: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>> Date: Wed, December 14, 2016 3:19 pm To: "policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>" <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Paul, all Please accept the language below for consideration as potential replacement language provided below by Paul. This language supersedes an earlier email I sent to the list. I apologise for any confusion. Just to be clear, this language is relevant to Item 2 of the Council response to the GAC communique. Proposed language from the RySG: The GNSO Council observes that ICANN is only one party to its contracts; the others are registries or registrars. It is inappropriate for one party to a contract to unilaterally define standards for reporting enforcement. Contracted parties voluntarily have developed, and continue to develop, various operational practices that proactively address abuse in various forms. To replace the following language suggested by Paul: Some contracted parties to ICANN have or are in the process of developing a number of “best practices” initiatives related to registry and registrar operations. ICANN is responsible for setting standards for abuse reporting and performance when determining compliance with contractual obligations. If the RySG language is acceptable, Paul’s response would read: The GNSO Council would like to express concern that the list of questions set out in Annex 1 has been categorised as “advice”. In this context, the term “advice” ought to be given its ordinary dictionary meaning, and a request to the Board to provide various data and information does not constitute “GAC Advice”, as this term is used in the ICANN Bylaws. Since GAC Advice has a specific status and treatment under the under the ICANN Bylaws, precision of terminology is crucial to avoid any perception that there is an attempt to direct the Board, rather than making a request for information and attempting to impose a reasonable deadline for its provision. That said, the GNSO Council looks forward to reviewing ICANN’s responses to the questions listed in Annex 1 to the Communiqué. The GNSO Council observes that ICANN is only one party to its contracts; the others are registries or registrars. It is inappropriate for one party to a contract to unilaterally define standards for reporting enforcement. Contracted parties voluntarily have developed, and continue to develop, various operational practices that proactively address abuse in various forms. The issue of DNS Abuse Mitigation raised by the GAC may also be dealt with by the GNSO in GNSO PDP Working Groups, producing relevant Consensus Policy recommendations then duly adopted by the Board. Further, the issue of DNS Abuse Mitigation raised by the GAC is dealt with by the GNSO as the issue arises, whether it be various active and/or open projects on the Projects List<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_meeti...>, or as part of GNSO Policy Activities<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...>. I do want to reiterate a previous suggestion I had made in that I do believe it would be worthwhile to elevate the comments about the definition of GAC Advice to the letter of transmittal. Thanks Donna From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 12:11 PM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] For your review - GNSO Review of GAC Communique Hyderabad Hi All, The IPC has had a chance to consider the draft language for Section 2 and propose the following (heavily) edited draft response: ___________________________ The GNSO Council would like to express concern that the list of questions set out in Annex 1 has been categorised as “advice”. In this context, the term “advice” ought to be given its ordinary dictionary meaning, and a request to the Board to provide various data and information does not constitute “GAC Advice”, as this term is used in the ICANN Bylaws. Since GAC Advice has a specific status and treatment under the under the ICANN Bylaws, precision of terminology is crucial to avoid any perception that there is an attempt to direct the Board, rather than making a request for information and attempting to impose a reasonable deadline for its provision. That said, the GNSO Council looks forward to reviewing ICANN’s responses to the questions listed in Annex 1 to the Communiqué. The issue of DNS Abuse Mitigation raised by the GAC may also be dealt with by the GNSO in GNSO PDP Working Groups, producing relevant Consensus Policy recommendations then duly adopted by the Board. Further, the issue of DNS Abuse Mitigation raised by the GAC is dealt with by the GNSO as the issue arises, whether it be various active and/or open projects on the Projects List<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_meeti...>, or as part of GNSO Policy Activities<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...>. ___________________________ I'm very happy to discuss the rationale for these proposed changes. Best, Paul -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] For your review - GNSO Review of GAC Communique Hyderabad From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Thu, December 08, 2016 11:48 am To: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Dear All, Please find attached for your review the proposed GNSO Review of the GAC Communique. This draft has been developed by the small drafting team that was formed at ICANN57 consisting of Donna Austin, James Bladel, Heather Forrest, Phil Corwin, Michele Neylon, Paul McGrady and Carlos Guttierez. Please share any comments and/or input you may have with the mailing list. Consideration of this document is also on the agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 15 December. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_...> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>.