Next step on closed generics
Dear Councilors, As we proceed with preparing for the Closed Generics facilitated dialogue and as noted in the Board's recent letter, the next step for the GNSO is to assemble a group of individuals who will participate in the dialogue. Noting that the Council small group suggested that no more than 6-8 individuals from the GNSO participate, and acknowledging that there are benefits to keeping the group as small as possible, Council leadership would like to propose that we aim for 6 seats, as follows: * 1 seat from Council leadership (ex-officio) * 1 seat from the SubPro PDP leadership team * 1 seat from each GNSO Stakeholder Group o A Stakeholder Group can give its seat to another Stakeholder Group if it chooses to do so o Council will provide Stakeholder Groups with the criteria from the Small Team to support selection of individuals o Stakeholder Group's will make a selection according to their own procedures With this proposal, the GAC would also have the opportunity to fill an equal number of seats (6), bringing total participation to 13 individuals (which is inclusive of the one member from the ALAC). (The GAC may obviously also choose to appoint less than 6 members) It is important to note that while the proposed approach is seemingly representative in nature, the Council has provided expectations that members should, "...contribute as independent individuals, bringing their individual experiences and expertise, and not serve as representatives of their respective community organization(s). The participants must commit to focusing on successfully developing a framework for closed generics, even if the end product is inconsistent with the goals or priorities of the participant or the participant's SO/AC/SG/C." There is also an expectation that the facilitated discussion will avoid discussion of the "edge outcomes" (i.e., of allowing closed generics without restrictions or limitations or prohibiting closed generics under any circumstance) and members should be prepared to engage accordingly. Understanding that there may not be a perfect solution that all groups support equally, we hope that this proposal can be acceptable to all. If you are unable to support the proposal, please raise your concerns on the mailing list no later than August 17th (2 weeks from now). Thank you. Kind regards, Philippe _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
Hi Philippe, Thank you for the update! I have one suggestion and one question. First of all, while it makes sense to include former SubPro PDP leadership in the conversation, it seems weird that the seat should be considered a seat 'from the GNSO'. As we all know, SubPro PDP was an all-inclusive working group with multiple SO/AC members' active participation, even the co-chairs of the WG were not limited to GNSO members. It seems more reasonable, that instead of counting the SubPro leadership as a seat from the GNSO, to have them have 1 seat aside from either GAC or GNSO slots. That would mean GAC (5) + GNSO (5) + former SubPro leadership (1) + ALAC (1). Hope this makes sense. ALAC has requested and was permitted to have 1 member plus 1 alternative. I wonder if that's also the case for SG appointments? Thank you the Council leadership for your hard work! Best, Manju On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 2:18 AM philippe.fouquart--- via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Dear Councilors,
As we proceed with preparing for the Closed Generics facilitated dialogue and as noted in the Board’s recent letter, the next step for the GNSO is to assemble a group of individuals who will participate in the dialogue. Noting that the Council small group suggested that no more than 6-8 individuals from the GNSO participate, and acknowledging that there are benefits to keeping the group as small as possible, Council leadership would like to propose that we aim for 6 seats, as follows:
• 1 seat from Council leadership (ex-officio)
• 1 seat from the SubPro PDP leadership team
• 1 seat from each GNSO Stakeholder Group
o A Stakeholder Group can give its seat to another Stakeholder Group if it chooses to do so
o Council will provide Stakeholder Groups with the criteria from the Small Team to support selection of individuals
o Stakeholder Group’s will make a selection according to their own procedures
With this proposal, the GAC would also have the opportunity to fill an equal number of seats (6), bringing total participation to 13 individuals (which is inclusive of the one member from the ALAC). (The GAC may obviously also choose to appoint less than 6 members)
It is important to note that while the proposed approach is seemingly representative in nature, the Council has provided expectations that members should, “…contribute as independent individuals, bringing their individual experiences and expertise, and not serve as representatives of their respective community organization(s). The participants must commit to focusing on successfully developing a framework for closed generics, even if the end product is inconsistent with the goals or priorities of the participant or the participant’s SO/AC/SG/C.” There is also an expectation that the facilitated discussion will avoid discussion of the “edge outcomes” (i.e., of allowing closed generics without restrictions or limitations or prohibiting closed generics under any circumstance) and members should be prepared to engage accordingly.
Understanding that there may not be a perfect solution that all groups support equally, we hope that this proposal can be acceptable to all. If you are unable to support the proposal, please raise your concerns on the mailing list no later than August 17th (2 weeks from now).
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Philippe
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Manju, Thanks for your inputs. We can take your first point with the GAC to further reduce the size of the group, which is likely to be a significant factor of success. On the other hand with the PDP being a GNSO process, the fact that we count it our quota even if Sheryll takes the role eventually, seems to make sense. To the second point, leadership hadn’t anticipated alternates for a number of reasons. First to stress the need for the group to be small in terms of number of persons on board - the rationale for having one for ALAC was essentially to ensure commitment even over a limited time with only one seat. The second reason was that we felt it would then be more difficult to meet our small team’s recommendations of having members free from priorities of their appointing SO/AC/SG/C’s priorities and let the small group work out a common framework. Finally we were hopeful than given the mandate given by the Board of excluding the edge outcomes, this task wouldn’t be one that will need a long commitment from the six members, which otherwise generally requires alternates. I think we all appreciate that’s an adhoc approach to the problem, which may not be ideal, and even if we want to reach out to SG/Cs to make sure we have a good representation of the community, we are talking about appointing individuals, not representatives. Hope this is helpful, Best regards, Philippe From: 陳曼茹 Manju Chen <manju@nii.org.tw> Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 4:10 AM To: FOUQUART Philippe INNOV/NET <philippe.fouquart@orange.com> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org; gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Next step on closed generics Hi Philippe, Thank you for the update! I have one suggestion and one question. First of all, while it makes sense to include former SubPro PDP leadership in the conversation, it seems weird that the seat should be considered a seat 'from the GNSO'. As we all know, SubPro PDP was an all-inclusive working group with multiple SO/AC members' active participation, even the co-chairs of the WG were not limited to GNSO members. It seems more reasonable, that instead of counting the SubPro leadership as a seat from the GNSO, to have them have 1 seat aside from either GAC or GNSO slots. That would mean GAC (5) + GNSO (5) + former SubPro leadership (1) + ALAC (1). Hope this makes sense. ALAC has requested and was permitted to have 1 member plus 1 alternative. I wonder if that's also the case for SG appointments? Thank you the Council leadership for your hard work! Best, Manju On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 2:18 AM philippe.fouquart--- via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear Councilors, As we proceed with preparing for the Closed Generics facilitated dialogue and as noted in the Board’s recent letter, the next step for the GNSO is to assemble a group of individuals who will participate in the dialogue. Noting that the Council small group suggested that no more than 6-8 individuals from the GNSO participate, and acknowledging that there are benefits to keeping the group as small as possible, Council leadership would like to propose that we aim for 6 seats, as follows: * 1 seat from Council leadership (ex-officio) * 1 seat from the SubPro PDP leadership team * 1 seat from each GNSO Stakeholder Group o A Stakeholder Group can give its seat to another Stakeholder Group if it chooses to do so o Council will provide Stakeholder Groups with the criteria from the Small Team to support selection of individuals o Stakeholder Group’s will make a selection according to their own procedures With this proposal, the GAC would also have the opportunity to fill an equal number of seats (6), bringing total participation to 13 individuals (which is inclusive of the one member from the ALAC). (The GAC may obviously also choose to appoint less than 6 members) It is important to note that while the proposed approach is seemingly representative in nature, the Council has provided expectations that members should, “…contribute as independent individuals, bringing their individual experiences and expertise, and not serve as representatives of their respective community organization(s). The participants must commit to focusing on successfully developing a framework for closed generics, even if the end product is inconsistent with the goals or priorities of the participant or the participant’s SO/AC/SG/C.” There is also an expectation that the facilitated discussion will avoid discussion of the “edge outcomes” (i.e., of allowing closed generics without restrictions or limitations or prohibiting closed generics under any circumstance) and members should be prepared to engage accordingly. Understanding that there may not be a perfect solution that all groups support equally, we hope that this proposal can be acceptable to all. If you are unable to support the proposal, please raise your concerns on the mailing list no later than August 17th (2 weeks from now). Thank you. Kind regards, Philippe _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. Orange Restricted _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
Dear Philippe, Many thanks for your reply to Manju. I very much share in the logic which you stated, which is that the SubPro PDP was/is a GNSO process, and by extension, whose leadership appointments (excluding for the work tracks), I believe, were made by GNSO Council. So, in this respect, it matters less which part of the community leadership appointees were mostly associated with, if at all. But, for what it's worth, since you specifically mentioned Cheryl, please allow me to point out that in the SubPro PDP WG, she had self-identified her affiliation as NCSG/At-Large. Kind regards, Justine On Thu, 4 Aug 2022 at 21:51, philippe.fouquart--- via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Hi Manju,
Thanks for your inputs. We can take your first point with the GAC to further reduce the size of the group, which is likely to be a significant factor of success. On the other hand with the PDP being a GNSO process, the fact that we count it our quota even if Sheryll takes the role eventually, seems to make sense.
To the second point, leadership hadn’t anticipated alternates for a number of reasons.
First to stress the need for the group to be small in terms of number of persons on board - the rationale for having one for ALAC was essentially to ensure commitment even over a limited time with only one seat. The second reason was that we felt it would then be more difficult to meet our small team’s recommendations of having members free from priorities of their appointing SO/AC/SG/C’s priorities and let the small group work out a common framework. Finally we were hopeful than given the mandate given by the Board of excluding the edge outcomes, this task wouldn’t be one that will need a long commitment from the six members, which otherwise generally requires alternates.
I think we all appreciate that’s an adhoc approach to the problem, which may not be ideal, and even if we want to reach out to SG/Cs to make sure we have a good representation of the community, we are talking about appointing individuals, not representatives.
Hope this is helpful,
Best regards,
Philippe
*From:* 陳曼茹 Manju Chen <manju@nii.org.tw> *Sent:* Thursday, August 4, 2022 4:10 AM *To:* FOUQUART Philippe INNOV/NET <philippe.fouquart@orange.com> *Cc:* council@gnso.icann.org; gnso-secs@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] Next step on closed generics
Hi Philippe,
Thank you for the update!
I have one suggestion and one question.
First of all, while it makes sense to include former SubPro PDP leadership in the conversation, it seems weird that the seat should be considered a seat 'from the GNSO'. As we all know, SubPro PDP was an all-inclusive working group with multiple SO/AC members' active participation, even the co-chairs of the WG were not limited to GNSO members. It seems more reasonable, that instead of counting the SubPro leadership as a seat from the GNSO, to have them have 1 seat aside from either GAC or GNSO slots. That would mean GAC (5) + GNSO (5) + former SubPro leadership (1) + ALAC (1). Hope this makes sense.
ALAC has requested and was permitted to have 1 member plus 1 alternative. I wonder if that's also the case for SG appointments?
Thank you the Council leadership for your hard work!
Best,
Manju
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 2:18 AM philippe.fouquart--- via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Dear Councilors,
As we proceed with preparing for the Closed Generics facilitated dialogue and as noted in the Board’s recent letter, the next step for the GNSO is to assemble a group of individuals who will participate in the dialogue. Noting that the Council small group suggested that no more than 6-8 individuals from the GNSO participate, and acknowledging that there are benefits to keeping the group as small as possible, Council leadership would like to propose that we aim for 6 seats, as follows:
• 1 seat from Council leadership (ex-officio)
• 1 seat from the SubPro PDP leadership team
• 1 seat from each GNSO Stakeholder Group
o A Stakeholder Group can give its seat to another Stakeholder Group if it chooses to do so
o Council will provide Stakeholder Groups with the criteria from the Small Team to support selection of individuals
o Stakeholder Group’s will make a selection according to their own procedures
With this proposal, the GAC would also have the opportunity to fill an equal number of seats (6), bringing total participation to 13 individuals (which is inclusive of the one member from the ALAC). (The GAC may obviously also choose to appoint less than 6 members)
It is important to note that while the proposed approach is seemingly representative in nature, the Council has provided expectations that members should, “…contribute as independent individuals, bringing their individual experiences and expertise, and not serve as representatives of their respective community organization(s). The participants must commit to focusing on successfully developing a framework for closed generics, even if the end product is inconsistent with the goals or priorities of the participant or the participant’s SO/AC/SG/C.” There is also an expectation that the facilitated discussion will avoid discussion of the “edge outcomes” (i.e., of allowing closed generics without restrictions or limitations or prohibiting closed generics under any circumstance) and members should be prepared to engage accordingly.
Understanding that there may not be a perfect solution that all groups support equally, we hope that this proposal can be acceptable to all. If you are unable to support the proposal, please raise your concerns on the mailing list no later than August 17th (2 weeks from now).
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Philippe
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Orange Restricted
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (3)
-
Justine Chew -
philippe.fouquart＠orange.com -
陳曼茹 Manju Chen