Fellow Councilors: Here is my personal take on all this. As outlined in Chris’ letter: · For nearly two years, since October 2014, a Board subgroup has been meeting behind closed doors with selected GAC and IGO representatives (which have only an advisory role regarding gTLD policy) to discuss differing GNSO and GAC recommendations regarding certain protections for IGOs. During this entire period the same Board subgroup has engaged in no similar discussions with GNSO representatives, even though the GNSO is the policy-making body for gTLDs. · During this extended period of closed door discussions with GAC and IGO advisors “the Board has not yet been able to consider the substantive nature of the GNSO policy recommendations that remain outstanding”. Perhaps engaging in parallel discussions with GNSO representatives would have assisted such substantive consideration. It is very troubling that a Board subgroup has engaged in extended discussions with GAC and IGO representatives when, by its own admission, it and the full Board have not yet given substantive consideration to the GNSO’s policy recommendations on the same matters. · The Board subgroup still has no response to the Council’s letter of May 31, 2016, which was nearly a quarter of a year ago -- only a statement that “my sense is that we will be in a position to refer the substantive proposals to you shortly for your consideration”. · When the GNSO finally receives those substantive proposals, “suggestions relating to dispute resolution will most likely have to be referred to the ongoing IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP”. Speaking now as Co-Chair of that referenced IGO CRP WG, while GAC and IGO participation in that WG has not constituted a full boycott, it has been minimal and sporadic despite outreach efforts by both Co-Chairs and ICANN policy staff, and certainly far less than GAC and IGO engagement with the Board subgroup. Our WG is currently engaged in developing an outline for a draft final report and recommendations, which we hope to issue for public comment just prior to the ICANN 57 meeting – so the window for considering any substantive suggestions from the Board subgroup is rapidly closing, and will likely be shut by the end of September (of course, GAC and IGO comments on the draft report will be considered). Again, speaking personally, I believe that the procedure followed by the Board in this matter constitutes a good example of how differing positions between the GNSO and GAC should not be handled. The Board’s procedure has not been even-handed, in that it has engaged in a largely non-transparent process with governmental policy advisors while having no equivalent engagement with those private sector/civil society representatives charged with setting policy. Its recommendations from those one-sided discussions have not been delivered in a timely manner, which has frustrated Council members and may soon make any such recommendations irrelevant to the drafting of the IGO CRP WG’s final report and recommendations. And, overall, its actions may encourage GAC members and IGOs to engage in closed policy discussions with the Board, and thereby undermine initiatives taken by the GNSO to encourage early GAC engagement in the policy-making process (noting further that even if the GAC does continue to better engage in the policy-making process, what has transpired on this matter may set a precedent for a “two bites at the apple” approach whereby any PDP recommendations that are not to the GAC’s satisfaction can be contested through extended closed door, one-sided discussions with the Board). Summing up, my major concern is not that the Board’s process “has taken a longer time than any of us had anticipated”, but that this is not “a procedurally sound way to approach resolution of the issue” notwithstanding the Board’s belief that it is. There must be a more efficient and even-handed way to both consider differing GAC advice while recognizing the lead role of the GNSO in setting gTLD policy than what has transpired in this instance. Thank you for considering my personal views in this matter. I will consult further with the BC Excomm prior to any discussion of this matter on our September 1st call. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 3:02 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Update from Chris Disspain on the IGO protections issue Dear Councilors, Please find attached a note from ICANN Board member Chris Disspain that he has asked be forwarded to the Council, as a follow up to the discussions that took place in Helsinki on the issue of IGO acronym protections. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7752 / Virus Database: 4633/12811 - Release Date: 08/15/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.