James: Thanks for this update. If there is interest in making the IGO CRP report and recommendations the subject of a session in Copenhagen I would be happy to participate in that and I believe that Petter will feel the same. By that point in time the public comment period on the preliminary report and recommendations will have closed and the WG will be evaluating them and preparing a final report for Council consideration. My only caution in regard to “some sort of facilitated discussion between the GNSO and GAC” is that it must be clearly understood that GNSO policy recommendations and GAC advice are not to be regarded as having equivalent weight – the MSM places the ICANN community in the active lead role on developing DNS policy while governments having a responsive advisory role. With that, happy holidays and best wishes for the new year to all Council members. Very 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 James M. Bladel Sent: Friday, December 23, 2016 12:50 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] RC / IGO / CRP Updates Council Colleagues – At the Second Public Forum in Hyderabad, Bruce Tonkin reported on the Board’s discussions regarding the inconsistencies between GAC Advice and GNSO Policy Recommendations on the subject of RC/IGO protections. At this session, Bruce made the following comment: “The board met yesterday and we had a discussion about, you know, how best to move this forward, and we haven't made any resolution at this meeting because we want to talk to the different parties, but the gist of our suggestion is that we like the idea of some sort of facilitated discussion between the GNSO and GAC. We think it's important that in doing such a discussion, that there's a clear set of shared information and briefing documents that are available for all the parties in that discussion. “ http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/60/I57%20HYD_Tue08Nov2016-Public%20F... Since we left Hyderabad, there hasn’t been much progress to report on this front. However, this week the Council chairs (Donna, Heather and myself) had a brief call with Bruce, Becky and a few other folks from the Board, and also with Thomas Schneider and a few other folks from the GAC. During this call, we brainstormed about a potential for a public session on this topic at ICANN58 in Copenhagen, and also discussed what materials & documents we should gather to ensure a constructive dialog (trialog?). However, before we get too far in to this “facilitated discussion”, we first wanted to check in with the Council (and by extension, your SGs and Cs) and start a conversation to establish some boundaries and get consensus on our direction: • Any concerns about participating with the Board & GAC on this effort? I don’t believe this is the case, but worth asking at the outset. o Also, we’d like to keep the GNSO “delegation” small: Chairs, GAC Liaison (Carlos) but situationally include subject matter experts (Phil, Petter, Thomas Rickert, etc.) • It is not our intention to “negotiate” or “compromise” on the substance of community-developed policy. These are not ours to trade away. o Instead, the goal is to familiarize the other participants with GNSO procedures, provide rationale for how the recommendations were reached, and (only if necessary) describe the process for asking the GNSO community to revisit their earlier recommendations. • Naturally, we would report back to Council with any major developments, decisions or agreements. • Any other thoughts, questions or concerns from this Council. Thanks in advance for your feedback. And on behalf of Heather, Donna and myself: Have a great holiday break! All the best wishes to Councilors, Staff and their families & friends, and looking forward to a productive and prosperous 2017. Thank you, J. ----- James Bladel ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16