Jeff and All, Regarding the issue of policy vs. implementation, this is an issue that staff is currently working on also in light of the paper that was published for comment a short while ago on community input and advice (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/input-advice-function-2 4sep12-en.pdf). We hope to be able to share something with you in time for the next GNSO Council meeting. With best regards, Marika From: <Neuman>, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Date: Thursday 29 November 2012 06:55 To: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections) All, We have a very serious problem here that needs immediate attention. I am not referring to the merits of whether any of these organizations deserve protection or not, or whether there should be additional safeguards for IP owners in the new gTLD process or whether certain Whois Review team recommendations could be put into place . Forget all of that. Forget the merits and substance of these important issues. The real issue is that new reliance on the terms ³policy² vs. ³implementation.² This is the issue that should receive top priority. To quote Alan Greenberg (or at least paraphrase), when one group wants something in place without using the policy process, they call it ³implementation.² Those that oppose it, call it ³policy.² While that statement was made several times by Alan partly in jest, that statement does have merit. Lets look at the following 3 examples: 1. IOC/RC ­ As the letter sent around by Jonathan shows, the GAC is thoroughly annoyed with the GNSO for starting a policy process on the protection of IOC and Red Cross marks. They believe (although unstated), that they have exclusive jurisdiction over these types of public policy issues and do not want the GNSO to take ³years² to work out whether these organizations (which they believe are protected by law) should receive protections in the new gTLD process. Without commenting on the merits of this argument, look at what they have done. They have called the protections as nothing more than ³implementation² and therefore, the GNSO should explain itself as to why we believe we have a right to start a policy process on it. After all, implementation can just be enacted by the Board. There is no need for the GNSO to get involved, in their viewŠnor do they want it. 2. Whois Review Team: The ICANN Board sought guidance from the entire Internet community on whether the recommendations involved ³implementation² or ³policy². Why? Because if it is implementation, there is no need to involve the GNSO community and it can just be enacted. Those that supported the recommendations wholeheartedly called them ³implementation.² Those that opposed the recommendations called it ³policy.² I believe that many who called it policy actually truly believe there are policy issues involved, but some called it policy, to have it go through the long drawn out process we call a PDP (with the hopes that it dies a slow death). Neither side of this debate is blameless. 3. The now infamous New gTLD ³straw-man²: For the record, I was a part of the group that discussed the straw man in Brussels and LA over the past few weeks. I found those discussions very useful and appreciate the efforts being made by the new ICANN CEO, who I have a tremendous amount of respect for. I believe he truly will make a huge positive impact on ICANN for many years to come. But, now the debate has turned into what is policy and what is implementation. The IPC/BC and their representatives have called all of their proposals ³implementation². The NCSG, Registries, Registrars and Applicants have called much of it policy. ICANN staff has now weighed in on their thoughts and have classified certain items as implementation (thereby negating the need for GNSO policy development), and other items as policy, thereby requiring extensive involvement from the GNSO community ­ note I did NOT say necessarily PDP). I believe we all need to take a step back from the issues immediately and decide once and for all an agreed upon bottom-up multi-stakeholder definition of what is ³policy² and what is ³implementation.² Or at the very least a framework for making that assessment when issues arise. I would advocate for a cross community group made up of members from ICANN staff, the GNSO, the GAC and others to come together to figure this issue out, so that we get out of this rut we are now in. At the same time, we need to fix the image of the GNSO policy processes so that they are no longer feared, but embraced. They need to not be used as vehicles for delay, but rather utilized for the common good. If we are able to do this, I believe many of the issues we are now having will become easier to resolve (and we can focus on the merits). If not, I see these issues getting much worse over the coming months/years. I believe the future of the GNSO, and even the multi-stakeholder model in general hinge on the definition of these 2 words. I would be very happy to volunteer to serve on such a group. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:00 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections All, FYI. Please see the attached letter received from the GAC last night my time. Jonathan From: GAC Secretariat [mailto:gacsec@gac.icann.org] Sent: 28 November 2012 21:38 To: jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com Cc: Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade; Heather Dryden; Maria Häll; alice@apc.org; Choon Sai LIM (IDA) Subject: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections Sent on behalf of Heather Dryden, GAC Chair Dear Jonathan, Attached please find a letter from the GAC regarding IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent protections. Best regards, Jeannie Ellers Jeannie Ellers Manager, GAC Coordination Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 1101 New York Avenue NW, Suite 930 Washington, DC 20005 Ph. +1 202 570 7135 M. +1 310 302 7552

Thanks, Jeff. As you may recall, we organised a session in Toronto to discuss the issue of community input and advice, and are taken the input received as a result of that session as well as the public comment forum into account. As we are already quite far along in our thinking (you may recall that a draft flow chart was shared as part of the TMCH), we would like to be able to at least 'finalise' that work and share it with you. Of course, this would only be one piece of input, but may help in moving the discussion forward instead of starting from scratch. With best regards, Marika From: <Neuman>, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Date: Thursday 29 November 2012 08:37 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections) Thanks Marika and we appreciate the effort. Perhaps rather than coming out with a document from ³staff², you solicit a few volunteers from the community to help staff in the preparation of this initial cut of the paper. For too long the community is forced into a reactive mode once staff in isolation comes up with its position (which may or may not be reflective of the community¹s thoughts). Then staff traditionally is in a position to ³defend² its position and the community feels like it is too late to have an impact. I do not believe that is the right way to proceed. If you get a small group together that works on this initial paper with you, staff does not have to take on this burden alone and the community can feel like it has made a contribution. As part of your commitment to the multi-stakeholder bottom-up process, would that be a possibility. As I said earlier, I would be happy to volunteer if others would be comfortable with that. I am also happy to let others take my place. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 11:17 AM To: Neuman, Jeff; Jonathan Robinson; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections) Jeff and All, Regarding the issue of policy vs. implementation, this is an issue that staff is currently working on also in light of the paper that was published for comment a short while ago on community input and advice (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/input-advice-function-2 4sep12-en.pdf). We hope to be able to share something with you in time for the next GNSO Council meeting. With best regards, Marika From: <Neuman>, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Date: Thursday 29 November 2012 06:55 To: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections) All, We have a very serious problem here that needs immediate attention. I am not referring to the merits of whether any of these organizations deserve protection or not, or whether there should be additional safeguards for IP owners in the new gTLD process or whether certain Whois Review team recommendations could be put into place . Forget all of that. Forget the merits and substance of these important issues. The real issue is that new reliance on the terms ³policy² vs. ³implementation.² This is the issue that should receive top priority. To quote Alan Greenberg (or at least paraphrase), when one group wants something in place without using the policy process, they call it ³implementation.² Those that oppose it, call it ³policy.² While that statement was made several times by Alan partly in jest, that statement does have merit. Lets look at the following 3 examples: 1. IOC/RC ­ As the letter sent around by Jonathan shows, the GAC is thoroughly annoyed with the GNSO for starting a policy process on the protection of IOC and Red Cross marks. They believe (although unstated), that they have exclusive jurisdiction over these types of public policy issues and do not want the GNSO to take ³years² to work out whether these organizations (which they believe are protected by law) should receive protections in the new gTLD process. Without commenting on the merits of this argument, look at what they have done. They have called the protections as nothing more than ³implementation² and therefore, the GNSO should explain itself as to why we believe we have a right to start a policy process on it. After all, implementation can just be enacted by the Board. There is no need for the GNSO to get involved, in their viewŠnor do they want it. 2. Whois Review Team: The ICANN Board sought guidance from the entire Internet community on whether the recommendations involved ³implementation² or ³policy². Why? Because if it is implementation, there is no need to involve the GNSO community and it can just be enacted. Those that supported the recommendations wholeheartedly called them ³implementation.² Those that opposed the recommendations called it ³policy.² I believe that many who called it policy actually truly believe there are policy issues involved, but some called it policy, to have it go through the long drawn out process we call a PDP (with the hopes that it dies a slow death). Neither side of this debate is blameless. 3. The now infamous New gTLD ³straw-man²: For the record, I was a part of the group that discussed the straw man in Brussels and LA over the past few weeks. I found those discussions very useful and appreciate the efforts being made by the new ICANN CEO, who I have a tremendous amount of respect for. I believe he truly will make a huge positive impact on ICANN for many years to come. But, now the debate has turned into what is policy and what is implementation. The IPC/BC and their representatives have called all of their proposals ³implementation². The NCSG, Registries, Registrars and Applicants have called much of it policy. ICANN staff has now weighed in on their thoughts and have classified certain items as implementation (thereby negating the need for GNSO policy development), and other items as policy, thereby requiring extensive involvement from the GNSO community ­ note I did NOT say necessarily PDP). I believe we all need to take a step back from the issues immediately and decide once and for all an agreed upon bottom-up multi-stakeholder definition of what is ³policy² and what is ³implementation.² Or at the very least a framework for making that assessment when issues arise. I would advocate for a cross community group made up of members from ICANN staff, the GNSO, the GAC and others to come together to figure this issue out, so that we get out of this rut we are now in. At the same time, we need to fix the image of the GNSO policy processes so that they are no longer feared, but embraced. They need to not be used as vehicles for delay, but rather utilized for the common good. If we are able to do this, I believe many of the issues we are now having will become easier to resolve (and we can focus on the merits). If not, I see these issues getting much worse over the coming months/years. I believe the future of the GNSO, and even the multi-stakeholder model in general hinge on the definition of these 2 words. I would be very happy to volunteer to serve on such a group. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:00 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections All, FYI. Please see the attached letter received from the GAC last night my time. Jonathan From: GAC Secretariat [mailto:gacsec@gac.icann.org] Sent: 28 November 2012 21:38 To: jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com Cc: Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade; Heather Dryden; Maria Häll; alice@apc.org; Choon Sai LIM (IDA) Subject: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections Sent on behalf of Heather Dryden, GAC Chair Dear Jonathan, Attached please find a letter from the GAC regarding IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent protections. Best regards, Jeannie Ellers Jeannie Ellers Manager, GAC Coordination Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 1101 New York Avenue NW, Suite 930 Washington, DC 20005 Ph. +1 202 570 7135 M. +1 310 302 7552

Hi all, I didn't make that session either but have looked at the document setting out the issues to be discussed. It looks to me that 'policy v. implementation' would be a rather smaller subset of the issues of input overall. I also support Jeff's call for (what I think of as) a more targeted and community-driven initiative to articulate at the level of principles a distinction between policy and implementation. The staff paper may provide useful input to this. Marika, when is a public draft expected? In the meantime, we don't need permission to develop and circulate ideas. I also volunteer to, at least informally, start to articulate some principles. Maria On 29 November 2012 16:56, Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> wrote:

I do recall and remember that there were a large number of conflicting meetings with that session. My point is that it is a very different topic to broadly discuss community input into the policy process and to define what is policy vs. implementation (which I believe is a much more recent issue than what we knew about in Toronto). ****

** **

I also recall seeing the flow chart, much of which I thought was ok, some was way off base. I believe before sending that document out to the world (when everyone will interpret that as final), there should be a smaller group review. Staff presenting its thoughts on critical issues, while important, is not a substitute for the bottom-up process.****

** **

** **

*Jeffrey J. Neuman** **Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs*

****

** **

*From:* Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2012 11:49 AM

*To:* Neuman, Jeff; Jonathan Robinson; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* Re: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections)****

** **

Thanks, Jeff. As you may recall, we organised a session in Toronto to discuss the issue of community input and advice, and are taken the input received as a result of that session as well as the public comment forum into account. As we are already quite far along in our thinking (you may recall that a draft flow chart was shared as part of the TMCH), we would like to be able to at least 'finalise' that work and share it with you. Of course, this would only be one piece of input, but may help in moving the discussion forward instead of starting from scratch.****

** **

With best regards,****

** **

Marika****

** **

*From: *<Neuman>, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> *Date: *Thursday 29 November 2012 08:37 *To: *Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson < jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org" < council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *RE: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections)****

** **

Thanks Marika and we appreciate the effort. Perhaps rather than coming out with a document from “staff”, you solicit a few volunteers from the community to help staff in the preparation of this initial cut of the paper. For too long the community is forced into a reactive mode once staff in isolation comes up with its position (which may or may not be reflective of the community’s thoughts). Then staff traditionally is in a position to “defend” its position and the community feels like it is too late to have an impact. I do not believe that is the right way to proceed. If you get a small group together that works on this initial paper with you, staff does not have to take on this burden alone and the community can feel like it has made a contribution.****

****

As part of your commitment to the multi-stakeholder bottom-up process, would that be a possibility. As I said earlier, I would be happy to volunteer if others would be comfortable with that. I am also happy to let others take my place.****

****

Thanks.****

****

*Jeffrey J. Neuman** **Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs*

****

****

*From:* Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org<marika.konings@icann.org>]

*Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2012 11:17 AM *To:* Neuman, Jeff; Jonathan Robinson; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* Re: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections)****

****

Jeff and All,****

****

Regarding the issue of policy vs. implementation, this is an issue that staff is currently working on also in light of the paper that was published for comment a short while ago on community input and advice (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/input-advice-function-2...). We hope to be able to share something with you in time for the next GNSO Council meeting.****

****

With best regards,****

****

Marika****

****

*From: *<Neuman>, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> *Date: *Thursday 29 November 2012 06:55 *To: *Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>, " council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections)****

****

All,****

****

We have a very serious problem here that needs immediate attention. I am not referring to the merits of whether any of these organizations deserve protection or not, or whether there should be additional safeguards for IP owners in the new gTLD process or whether certain Whois Review team recommendations could be put into place . Forget all of that. Forget the merits and substance of these important issues.****

****

The real issue is that new reliance on the terms “policy” vs. “implementation.” This is the issue that should receive top priority. To quote Alan Greenberg (or at least paraphrase), when one group wants something in place without using the policy process, they call it “implementation.” Those that oppose it, call it “policy.” While that statement was made several times by Alan partly in jest, that statement does have merit.****

****

Lets look at the following 3 examples:****

****

**1. *** IOC/RC* – As the letter sent around by Jonathan shows, the GAC is thoroughly annoyed with the GNSO for starting a policy process on the protection of IOC and Red Cross marks. They believe (although unstated), that they have exclusive jurisdiction over these types of public policy issues and do not want the GNSO to take “years” to work out whether these organizations (which they believe are protected by law) should receive protections in the new gTLD process. Without commenting on the merits of this argument, look at what they have done. They have called the protections as nothing more than “implementation” and therefore, the GNSO should explain itself as to why we believe we have a right to start a policy process on it. After all, implementation can just be enacted by the Board. There is no need for the GNSO to get involved, in their view…nor do they want it.****

****

**2. ***Whois Review Team*: The ICANN Board sought guidance from the entire Internet community on whether the recommendations involved “implementation” or “policy”. Why? Because if it is implementation, there is no need to involve the GNSO community and it can just be enacted. Those that supported the recommendations wholeheartedly called them “implementation.” Those that opposed the recommendations called it “policy.” I believe that many who called it policy actually truly believe there are policy issues involved, but some called it policy, to have it go through the long drawn out process we call a PDP (with the hopes that it dies a slow death). Neither side of this debate is blameless.****

****

**3. ***The now infamous New gTLD “straw-man”*: For the record, I was a part of the group that discussed the straw man in Brussels and LA over the past few weeks. I found those discussions very useful and appreciate the efforts being made by the new ICANN CEO, who I have a tremendous amount of respect for. I believe he truly will make a huge positive impact on ICANN for many years to come. But, now the debate has turned into what is policy and what is implementation. The IPC/BC and their representatives have called all of their proposals “implementation”. The NCSG, Registries, Registrars and Applicants have called much of it policy. ICANN staff has now weighed in on their thoughts and have classified certain items as implementation (thereby negating the need for GNSO policy development), and other items as policy, thereby requiring extensive involvement from the GNSO community – note I did NOT say necessarily PDP).****

****

I believe we all need to take a step back from the issues *immediately*and decide once and for all an agreed upon bottom-up multi-stakeholder definition of what is “policy” and what is “implementation.” Or at the very least a framework for making that assessment when issues arise. I would advocate for a cross community group made up of members from ICANN staff, the GNSO, the GAC and others to come together to figure this issue out, so that we get out of this rut we are now in. At the same time, we need to fix the image of the GNSO policy processes so that they are no longer feared, but embraced. They need to not be used as vehicles for delay, but rather utilized for the common good.****

****

If we are able to do this, I believe many of the issues we are now having will become easier to resolve (and we can focus on the merits). If not, I see these issues getting much worse over the coming months/years. I believe the future of the GNSO, and even the multi-stakeholder model in general hinge on the definition of these 2 words.****

****

I would be very happy to volunteer to serve on such a group.****

****

Thanks.****

****

****

*Jeffrey J. Neuman** **Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs*

****

****

*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:00 AM *To:* council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections* ***

****

All,****

****

FYI. Please see the attached letter received from the GAC last night my time.****

****

Jonathan****

****

*From:* GAC Secretariat [mailto:gacsec@gac.icann.org<gacsec@gac.icann.org>]

*Sent:* 28 November 2012 21:38 *To:* jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com *Cc:* Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade; Heather Dryden; Maria Häll; alice@apc.org; Choon Sai LIM (IDA) *Subject:* Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections****

****

Sent on behalf of Heather Dryden, GAC Chair ****

****

Dear Jonathan, ****

****

Attached please find a letter from the GAC regarding IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent protections. ****

****

Best regards, ****

****

Jeannie Ellers ****

****

Jeannie Ellers Manager, GAC Coordination Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 1101 New York Avenue NW, Suite 930****

Washington, DC 20005 Ph. +1 202 570 7135 M. +1 310 302 7552****

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Jonathan and thanks for forwarding this. Jeff, this is an interesting idea which I've asked for comments on from our constituency group. I think it is a good idea to take a step back from the issues and look strategically at what is happening and why in the GNSO relationship with the GAC. The examples you cite are symptoms, I agree, of a wider problem and they will simply keep happening if not resolved. I'm not convinced getting agreed definitions of "policy" vs "implementation" will resolve some of these issues. But if it is a measure to assist and has community support then the Council should consider it. Thanks for raising this Kind regards Joy On 30/11/2012 3:55 a.m., Neuman, Jeff wrote:

All,

We have a very serious problem here that needs immediate attention. I am not referring to the merits of whether any of these organizations deserve protection or not, or whether there should be additional safeguards for IP owners in the new gTLD process or whether certain Whois Review team recommendations could be put into place . Forget all of that. Forget the merits and substance of these important issues.

The real issue is that new reliance on the terms “policy” vs. “implementation.” This is the issue that should receive top priority. To quote Alan Greenberg (or at least paraphrase), when one group wants something in place without using the policy process, they call it “implementation.” Those that oppose it, call it “policy.” While that statement was made several times by Alan partly in jest, that statement does have merit.

Lets look at the following 3 examples:

1. _ IOC/RC_– As the letter sent around by Jonathan shows, the GAC is thoroughly annoyed with the GNSO for starting a policy process on the protection of IOC and Red Cross marks. They believe (although unstated), that they have exclusive jurisdiction over these types of public policy issues and do not want the GNSO to take “years” to work out whether these organizations (which they believe are protected by law) should receive protections in the new gTLD process. Without commenting on the merits of this argument, look at what they have done. They have called the protections as nothing more than “implementation” and therefore, the GNSO should explain itself as to why we believe we have a right to start a policy process on it. After all, implementation can just be enacted by the Board. There is no need for the GNSO to get involved, in their view…nor do they want it.

2. _Whois Review Team_: The ICANN Board sought guidance from the entire Internet community on whether the recommendations involved “implementation” or “policy”. Why? Because if it is implementation, there is no need to involve the GNSO community and it can just be enacted. Those that supported the recommendations wholeheartedly called them “implementation.” Those that opposed the recommendations called it “policy.” I believe that many who called it policy actually truly believe there are policy issues involved, but some called it policy, to have it go through the long drawn out process we call a PDP (with the hopes that it dies a slow death). Neither side of this debate is blameless.

3. _The now infamous New gTLD “straw-man”_: For the record, I was a part of the group that discussed the straw man in Brussels and LA over the past few weeks. I found those discussions very useful and appreciate the efforts being made by the new ICANN CEO, who I have a tremendous amount of respect for. I believe he truly will make a huge positive impact on ICANN for many years to come. But, now the debate has turned into what is policy and what is implementation. The IPC/BC and their representatives have called all of their proposals “implementation”. The NCSG, Registries, Registrars and Applicants have called much of it policy. ICANN staff has now weighed in on their thoughts and have classified certain items as implementation (thereby negating the need for GNSO policy development), and other items as policy, thereby requiring extensive involvement from the GNSO community – note I did NOT say necessarily PDP).

I believe we all need to take a step back from the issues _immediately_ and decide once and for all an agreed upon bottom-up multi-stakeholder definition of what is “policy” and what is “implementation.” Or at the very least a framework for making that assessment when issues arise. I would advocate for a cross community group made up of members from ICANN staff, the GNSO, the GAC and others to come together to figure this issue out, so that we get out of this rut we are now in. At the same time, we need to fix the image of the GNSO policy processes so that they are no longer feared, but embraced. They need to not be used as vehicles for delay, but rather utilized for the common good.

If we are able to do this, I believe many of the issues we are now having will become easier to resolve (and we can focus on the merits). If not, I see these issues getting much worse over the coming months/years. I believe the future of the GNSO, and even the multi-stakeholder model in general hinge on the definition of these 2 words.

I would be very happy to volunteer to serve on such a group.

Thanks.

*Jeffrey J. Neuman** **Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs*

*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:00 AM *To:* council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections

All,

FYI. Please see the attached letter received from the GAC last night my time.

Jonathan

*From:*GAC Secretariat [mailto:gacsec@gac.icann.org] *Sent:* 28 November 2012 21:38 *To:* jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> *Cc:* Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade; Heather Dryden; Maria Häll; alice@apc.org <mailto:alice@apc.org>; Choon Sai LIM (IDA) *Subject:* Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections

Sent on behalf of Heather Dryden, GAC Chair

Dear Jonathan,

Attached please find a letter from the GAC regarding IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent protections.

Best regards,

Jeannie Ellers

Jeannie Ellers Manager, GAC Coordination Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 1101 New York Avenue NW, Suite 930

Washington, DC 20005 Ph. +1 202 570 7135 M. +1 310 302 7552

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQuCLfAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq2UYIALFsC+nao4XbcAJOAQn8MKC1 9bkXt7+nH68krEvF7ApfgUrO5JIHX9lEFHS25NSS/tq0KW003dp96WNL0QmVoQPj aqn7NWlplQkVY57eBeF7QxUYwum4jZencdtcpIrpAySPa8uk+jBY9sx/nlxVoNYE 8HbLfTlxPr0leeZ9BdZb8oqxzCmr4WpjTGw/UYMxHPEf8fEptkHFHgEQEty9rpyo eSNQnnbjPHPvoliM8rUSfUca1VpFGNYVJJc9Di5I6xNY3Zar4OX0YmTEyD20j7uc 41nCb8yn8RWfgYHCcY4fURxOs5NDuv+JedrFq7Jbil8KBAkiFoAwoJxeJYPQm5A= =i1KX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

All, This has really kicked off a critical area of discussion and required development, as Jeff highlighted at the outset. At the absolute minimum, it is great to see the level of engagement in the topic. A related concept that I do not believe we have yet picked up on in this thread, is not around the definition but the sequencing of policy and implementation. It seems that we have often focussed strongly on policy and then subsequently followed up with focus on implementation as though they are necessarily sequential. It reminds me of the current trend in software and systems development where iterative development with small cycles is very much in fashion now, so called Agile Development practices. This approach is nowadays often favoured over the more classical sequential, cascading ("Waterfall" approach) which may produce results which are no longer fully relevant to requirements or dated from the outset. This tighter linking of policy and implementation issues throughout the process is certainly something I have heard Fadi mention and I believe it is on the agenda of ICANN staff to be focussed on and aware of. Clearly, the "implementation" of the TMCH and other critical new gTLD issues has brought this home to Fadi and many if not all of us. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: 30 November 2012 09:41 To: joy@apc.org Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Jonathan Robinson; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections) All, I am in full agreement that a better definition of these terms is necessary and I appreciate staffs efforts in this matter, even though I think this needs broader community involvement. Definitely a session to attend in Beijing, so I would urge staff not to schedule it concurrently with other important sessions. One further consideration is the question if policy "taints" (for lack of a better word; I mean it without the negative connotations here) implementation. I would argue that even if a decision is 90% implementation and 10% policy, it should be enveloped under the umbrella of policy and therefore subject to GNSO approval. Best, Volker

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Hi Jonathan and thanks for forwarding this. Jeff, this is an interesting idea which I've asked for comments on from our constituency group. I think it is a good idea to take a step back from the issues and look strategically at what is happening and why in the GNSO relationship with the GAC. The examples you cite are symptoms, I agree, of a wider problem and they will simply keep happening if not resolved. I'm not convinced getting agreed definitions of "policy" vs "implementation" will resolve some of these issues. But if it is a measure to assist and has community support then the Council should consider it. Thanks for raising this Kind regards Joy

On 30/11/2012 3:55 a.m., Neuman, Jeff wrote:

...

All,

We have a very serious problem here that needs immediate attention. I am not referring to the merits of whether any of these organizations deserve protection or not, or whether there should be additional safeguards for IP owners in the new gTLD process or whether certain Whois Review team recommendations could be put into place . Forget all of that. Forget the merits and substance of these important issues.

The real issue is that new reliance on the terms “policy” vs. “implementation.” This is the issue that should receive top priority. To quote Alan Greenberg (or at least paraphrase), when one group wants something in place without using the policy process, they call it “implementation.” Those that oppose it, call it “policy.” While that statement was made several times by Alan partly in jest, that statement does have merit.

Lets look at the following 3 examples:

1. _ IOC/RC_– As the letter sent around by Jonathan shows, the GAC is thoroughly annoyed with the GNSO for starting a policy process on the protection of IOC and Red Cross marks. They believe (although unstated), that they have exclusive jurisdiction over these types of public policy issues and do not want the GNSO to take “years” to work out whether these organizations (which they believe are protected by law) should receive protections in the new gTLD process. Without commenting on the merits of this argument, look at what they have done. They have called the protections as nothing more than “implementation” and therefore, the GNSO should explain itself as to why we believe we have a right to start a policy process on it. After all, implementation can just be enacted by the Board. There is no need for the GNSO to get involved, in their view…nor do they want it.

2. _Whois Review Team_: The ICANN Board sought guidance from the entire Internet community on whether the recommendations involved “implementation” or “policy”. Why? Because if it is implementation, there is no need to involve the GNSO community and it can just be enacted. Those that supported the recommendations wholeheartedly called them “implementation.” Those that opposed the recommendations called it “policy.” I believe that many who called it policy actually truly believe there are policy issues involved, but some called it policy, to have it go through the long drawn out process we call a PDP (with the hopes that it dies a slow death). Neither side of this debate is blameless.

3. _The now infamous New gTLD “straw-man”_: For the record, I was a part of the group that discussed the straw man in Brussels and LA over the past few weeks. I found those discussions very useful and appreciate the efforts being made by the new ICANN CEO, who I have a tremendous amount of respect for. I believe he truly will make a huge positive impact on ICANN for many years to come. But, now the debate has turned into what is policy and what is implementation. The IPC/BC and their representatives have called all of their proposals “implementation”. The NCSG, Registries, Registrars and Applicants have called much of it policy. ICANN staff has now weighed in on their thoughts and have classified certain items as implementation (thereby negating the need for GNSO policy development), and other items as policy, thereby requiring extensive involvement from the GNSO community – note I did NOT say necessarily PDP).

I believe we all need to take a step back from the issues _immediately_ and decide once and for all an agreed upon bottom-up multi-stakeholder definition of what is “policy” and what is “implementation.” Or at the very least a framework for making that assessment when issues arise. I would advocate for a cross community group made up of members from ICANN staff, the GNSO, the GAC and others to come together to figure this issue out, so that we get out of this rut we are now in. At the same time, we need to fix the image of the GNSO policy processes so that they are no longer feared, but embraced. They need to not be used as vehicles for delay, but rather utilized for the common good.

If we are able to do this, I believe many of the issues we are now having will become easier to resolve (and we can focus on the merits). If not, I see these issues getting much worse over the coming months/years. I believe the future of the GNSO, and even the multi-stakeholder model in general hinge on the definition of these 2 words.

I would be very happy to volunteer to serve on such a group.

Thanks.

*Jeffrey J. Neuman** **Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs*

*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:00 AM *To:* council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections

All,

FYI. Please see the attached letter received from the GAC last night my time.

Jonathan

*From:*GAC Secretariat [mailto:gacsec@gac.icann.org] *Sent:* 28 November 2012 21:38 *To:* jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> *Cc:* Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade; Heather Dryden; Maria Häll; alice@apc.org <mailto:alice@apc.org>; Choon Sai LIM (IDA) *Subject:* Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections

Sent on behalf of Heather Dryden, GAC Chair

Dear Jonathan,

Attached please find a letter from the GAC regarding IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent protections.

Best regards,

Jeannie Ellers

Jeannie Ellers Manager, GAC Coordination Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 1101 New York Avenue NW, Suite 930

Washington, DC 20005 Ph. +1 202 570 7135 M. +1 310 302 7552

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQuCLfAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq2UYIALFsC+nao4XbcAJOAQn8MKC1 9bkXt7+nH68krEvF7ApfgUrO5JIHX9lEFHS25NSS/tq0KW003dp96WNL0QmVoQPj aqn7NWlplQkVY57eBeF7QxUYwum4jZencdtcpIrpAySPa8uk+jBY9sx/nlxVoNYE 8HbLfTlxPr0leeZ9BdZb8oqxzCmr4WpjTGw/UYMxHPEf8fEptkHFHgEQEty9rpyo eSNQnnbjPHPvoliM8rUSfUca1VpFGNYVJJc9Di5I6xNY3Zar4OX0YmTEyD20j7uc 41nCb8yn8RWfgYHCcY4fURxOs5NDuv+JedrFq7Jbil8KBAkiFoAwoJxeJYPQm5A= =i1KX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

I also agree that the boarder between policy and implementation is fluent. I wonder whether a clear delimitation would be achievable and solve the problems. In additon it is a question of the roles of GAC and GNSO: "advice" vs "support". In Toronto I've been approached by GAC members asking to be better integrated into the policy development (process). I think we should take this into consideration. A liaison may be one solution to offer. There may be more ideas to discuss. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Volker Greimann Gesendet: Freitag, 30. November 2012 10:41 An: joy@apc.org Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Jonathan Robinson; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections) All, I am in full agreement that a better definition of these terms is necessary and I appreciate staffs efforts in this matter, even though I think this needs broader community involvement. Definitely a session to attend in Beijing, so I would urge staff not to schedule it concurrently with other important sessions. One further consideration is the question if policy "taints" (for lack of a better word; I mean it without the negative connotations here) implementation. I would argue that even if a decision is 90% implementation and 10% policy, it should be enveloped under the umbrella of policy and therefore subject to GNSO approval. Best, Volker

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Hi Jonathan and thanks for forwarding this. Jeff, this is an interesting idea which I've asked for comments on from our constituency group. I think it is a good idea to take a step back from the issues and look strategically at what is happening and why in the GNSO relationship with the GAC. The examples you cite are symptoms, I agree, of a wider problem and they will simply keep happening if not resolved. I'm not convinced getting agreed definitions of "policy" vs "implementation" will resolve some of these issues. But if it is a measure to assist and has community support then the Council should consider it. Thanks for raising this Kind regards Joy

On 30/11/2012 3:55 a.m., Neuman, Jeff wrote:

...

All,

We have a very serious problem here that needs immediate attention. I am not referring to the merits of whether any of these organizations deserve protection or not, or whether there should be additional safeguards for IP owners in the new gTLD process or whether certain Whois Review team recommendations could be put into place . Forget all of that. Forget the merits and substance of these important issues.

The real issue is that new reliance on the terms "policy" vs. "implementation." This is the issue that should receive top priority. To quote Alan Greenberg (or at least paraphrase), when one group wants something in place without using the policy process, they call it "implementation." Those that oppose it, call it "policy." While that statement was made several times by Alan partly in jest, that statement does have merit.

Lets look at the following 3 examples:

1. _ IOC/RC_- As the letter sent around by Jonathan shows, the GAC is thoroughly annoyed with the GNSO for starting a policy process on the protection of IOC and Red Cross marks. They believe (although unstated), that they have exclusive jurisdiction over these types of public policy issues and do not want the GNSO to take "years" to work out whether these organizations (which they believe are protected by law) should receive protections in the new gTLD process. Without commenting on the merits of this argument, look at what they have done. They have called the protections as nothing more than "implementation" and therefore, the GNSO should explain itself as to why we believe we have a right to start a policy process on it. After all, implementation can just be enacted by the Board. There is no need for the GNSO to get involved, in their view...nor do they want it.

2. _Whois Review Team_: The ICANN Board sought guidance from the entire Internet community on whether the recommendations involved "implementation" or "policy". Why? Because if it is implementation, there is no need to involve the GNSO community and it can just be enacted. Those that supported the recommendations wholeheartedly called them "implementation." Those that opposed the recommendations called it "policy." I believe that many who called it policy actually truly believe there are policy issues involved, but some called it policy, to have it go through the long drawn out process we call a PDP (with the hopes that it dies a slow death). Neither side of this debate is blameless.

3. _The now infamous New gTLD "straw-man"_: For the record, I was a part of the group that discussed the straw man in Brussels and LA over the past few weeks. I found those discussions very useful and appreciate the efforts being made by the new ICANN CEO, who I have a tremendous amount of respect for. I believe he truly will make a huge positive impact on ICANN for many years to come. But, now the debate has turned into what is policy and what is implementation. The IPC/BC and their representatives have called all of their proposals "implementation". The NCSG, Registries, Registrars and Applicants have called much of it policy. ICANN staff has now weighed in on their thoughts and have classified certain items as implementation (thereby negating the need for GNSO policy development), and other items as policy, thereby requiring extensive involvement from the GNSO community - note I did NOT say necessarily PDP).

I believe we all need to take a step back from the issues _immediately_ and decide once and for all an agreed upon bottom-up multi-stakeholder definition of what is "policy" and what is "implementation." Or at the very least a framework for making that assessment when issues arise. I would advocate for a cross community group made up of members from ICANN staff, the GNSO, the GAC and others to come together to figure this issue out, so that we get out of this rut we are now in. At the same time, we need to fix the image of the GNSO policy processes so that they are no longer feared, but embraced. They need to not be used as vehicles for delay, but rather utilized for the common good.

If we are able to do this, I believe many of the issues we are now having will become easier to resolve (and we can focus on the merits). If not, I see these issues getting much worse over the coming months/years. I believe the future of the GNSO, and even the multi-stakeholder model in general hinge on the definition of these 2 words.

I would be very happy to volunteer to serve on such a group.

Thanks.

*Jeffrey J. Neuman** **Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs*

*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:00 AM *To:* council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections

All,

FYI. Please see the attached letter received from the GAC last night my time.

Jonathan

*From:*GAC Secretariat [mailto:gacsec@gac.icann.org] *Sent:* 28 November 2012 21:38 *To:* jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> *Cc:* Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade; Heather Dryden; Maria Häll; alice@apc.org <mailto:alice@apc.org>; Choon Sai LIM (IDA) *Subject:* Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections

Sent on behalf of Heather Dryden, GAC Chair

Dear Jonathan,

Attached please find a letter from the GAC regarding IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent protections.

Best regards,

Jeannie Ellers

Jeannie Ellers Manager, GAC Coordination Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 1101 New York Avenue NW, Suite 930

Washington, DC 20005 Ph. +1 202 570 7135 M. +1 310 302 7552

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQuCLfAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq2UYIALFsC+nao4XbcAJOAQn8MKC1 9bkXt7+nH68krEvF7ApfgUrO5JIHX9lEFHS25NSS/tq0KW003dp96WNL0QmVoQPj aqn7NWlplQkVY57eBeF7QxUYwum4jZencdtcpIrpAySPa8uk+jBY9sx/nlxVoNYE 8HbLfTlxPr0leeZ9BdZb8oqxzCmr4WpjTGw/UYMxHPEf8fEptkHFHgEQEty9rpyo eSNQnnbjPHPvoliM8rUSfUca1VpFGNYVJJc9Di5I6xNY3Zar4OX0YmTEyD20j7uc 41nCb8yn8RWfgYHCcY4fURxOs5NDuv+JedrFq7Jbil8KBAkiFoAwoJxeJYPQm5A= =i1KX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

I agree with Jonathan's approach. I further agree with Jeff that whatever the staff is now producing should not be developed behind closed doors without community input. On Nov 30, 2012, at 4:58 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:

Thanks again to Jeff for setting out such a critical issue for discussion and to others for significant input so far.

My thought is that we do need to respond, and in a reasonably timely manner (before calendar year end), to the GAC. The feelings / views are clearly strongly held.

Therefore, I suggest we move forward with two threads:

1. The key points of a response to the GAC, which will then form the basis for our/my actual reply (I am happy to kick-off / lead this). 2. Continue with this thread (Policy vs. Implementation) in order to develop and refine our thinking and approach on this critical issue.

Feel free to support or comment on this approach.

Jonathan

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: 30 November 2012 11:03 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections)

I also agree that the boarder between policy and implementation is fluent. I wonder whether a clear delimitation would be achievable and solve the problems. In additon it is a question of the roles of GAC and GNSO: "advice" vs "support". In Toronto I've been approached by GAC members asking to be better integrated into the policy development (process). I think we should take this into consideration. A liaison may be one solution to offer. There may be more ideas to discuss.

Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Volker Greimann Gesendet: Freitag, 30. November 2012 10:41 An: joy@apc.org Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Jonathan Robinson; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections)

All,

I am in full agreement that a better definition of these terms is necessary and I appreciate staffs efforts in this matter, even though I think this needs broader community involvement. Definitely a session to attend in Beijing, so I would urge staff not to schedule it concurrently with other important sessions. One further consideration is the question if policy "taints" (for lack of a better word; I mean it without the negative connotations here) implementation. I would argue that even if a decision is 90% implementation and 10% policy, it should be enveloped under the umbrella of policy and therefore subject to GNSO approval.

Best,

Volker

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Hi Jonathan and thanks for forwarding this. Jeff, this is an interesting idea which I've asked for comments on from our constituency group. I think it is a good idea to take a step back from the issues and look strategically at what is happening and why in the GNSO relationship with the GAC. The examples you cite are symptoms, I agree, of a wider problem and they will simply keep happening if not resolved. I'm not convinced getting agreed definitions of "policy" vs "implementation" will resolve some of these issues. But if it is a measure to assist and has community support then the Council should consider it. Thanks for raising this Kind regards Joy

On 30/11/2012 3:55 a.m., Neuman, Jeff wrote:

...

All,

We have a very serious problem here that needs immediate attention. I am not referring to the merits of whether any of these organizations deserve protection or not, or whether there should be additional safeguards for IP owners in the new gTLD process or whether certain Whois Review team recommendations could be put into place . Forget all of that. Forget the merits and substance of these important issues.

The real issue is that new reliance on the terms "policy" vs. "implementation." This is the issue that should receive top priority. To quote Alan Greenberg (or at least paraphrase), when one group wants something in place without using the policy process, they call it "implementation." Those that oppose it, call it "policy." While that statement was made several times by Alan partly in jest, that statement does have merit.

Lets look at the following 3 examples:

1. _ IOC/RC_- As the letter sent around by Jonathan shows, the GAC is thoroughly annoyed with the GNSO for starting a policy process on the protection of IOC and Red Cross marks. They believe (although unstated), that they have exclusive jurisdiction over these types of public policy issues and do not want the GNSO to take "years" to work out whether these organizations (which they believe are protected by law) should receive protections in the new gTLD process. Without commenting on the merits of this argument, look at what they have done. They have called the protections as nothing more than "implementation" and therefore, the GNSO should explain itself as to why we believe we have a right to start a policy process on it. After all, implementation can just be enacted by the Board. There is no need for the GNSO to get involved, in their view...nor do they want it.

2. _Whois Review Team_: The ICANN Board sought guidance from the entire Internet community on whether the recommendations involved "implementation" or "policy". Why? Because if it is implementation, there is no need to involve the GNSO community and it can just be enacted. Those that supported the recommendations wholeheartedly called them "implementation." Those that opposed the recommendations called it "policy." I believe that many who called it policy actually truly believe there are policy issues involved, but some called it policy, to have it go through the long drawn out process we call a PDP (with the hopes that it dies a slow death). Neither side of this debate is blameless.

3. _The now infamous New gTLD "straw-man"_: For the record, I was a part of the group that discussed the straw man in Brussels and LA over the past few weeks. I found those discussions very useful and appreciate the efforts being made by the new ICANN CEO, who I have a tremendous amount of respect for. I believe he truly will make a huge positive impact on ICANN for many years to come. But, now the debate has turned into what is policy and what is implementation. The IPC/BC and their representatives have called all of their proposals "implementation". The NCSG, Registries, Registrars and Applicants have called much of it policy. ICANN staff has now weighed in on their thoughts and have classified certain items as implementation (thereby negating the need for GNSO policy development), and other items as policy, thereby requiring extensive involvement from the GNSO community - note I did NOT say necessarily PDP).

I believe we all need to take a step back from the issues _immediately_ and decide once and for all an agreed upon bottom-up multi-stakeholder definition of what is "policy" and what is "implementation." Or at the very least a framework for making that assessment when issues arise. I would advocate for a cross community group made up of members from ICANN staff, the GNSO, the GAC and others to come together to figure this issue out, so that we get out of this rut we are now in. At the same time, we need to fix the image of the GNSO policy processes so that they are no longer feared, but embraced. They need to not be used as vehicles for delay, but rather utilized for the common good.

If we are able to do this, I believe many of the issues we are now having will become easier to resolve (and we can focus on the merits). If not, I see these issues getting much worse over the coming months/years. I believe the future of the GNSO, and even the multi-stakeholder model in general hinge on the definition of these 2 words.

I would be very happy to volunteer to serve on such a group.

Thanks.

*Jeffrey J. Neuman** **Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs*

*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:00 AM *To:* council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections

All,

FYI. Please see the attached letter received from the GAC last night my time.

Jonathan

*From:*GAC Secretariat [mailto:gacsec@gac.icann.org] *Sent:* 28 November 2012 21:38 *To:* jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> *Cc:* Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade; Heather Dryden; Maria Häll; alice@apc.org <mailto:alice@apc.org>; Choon Sai LIM (IDA) *Subject:* Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections

Sent on behalf of Heather Dryden, GAC Chair

Dear Jonathan,

Attached please find a letter from the GAC regarding IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent protections.

Best regards,

Jeannie Ellers

Jeannie Ellers Manager, GAC Coordination Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 1101 New York Avenue NW, Suite 930

Washington, DC 20005 Ph. +1 202 570 7135 M. +1 310 302 7552

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQuCLfAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq2UYIALFsC+nao4XbcAJOAQn8MKC1 9bkXt7+nH68krEvF7ApfgUrO5JIHX9lEFHS25NSS/tq0KW003dp96WNL0QmVoQPj aqn7NWlplQkVY57eBeF7QxUYwum4jZencdtcpIrpAySPa8uk+jBY9sx/nlxVoNYE 8HbLfTlxPr0leeZ9BdZb8oqxzCmr4WpjTGw/UYMxHPEf8fEptkHFHgEQEty9rpyo eSNQnnbjPHPvoliM8rUSfUca1VpFGNYVJJc9Di5I6xNY3Zar4OX0YmTEyD20j7uc 41nCb8yn8RWfgYHCcY4fURxOs5NDuv+JedrFq7Jbil8KBAkiFoAwoJxeJYPQm5A= =i1KX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

--------------------------------------------

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann - legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems

CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

Thanks Thomas. Appreciate the input and will welcome your assistance with the reply. Jonathan From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: 04 December 2012 21:37 To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: KnobenW@telekom.de; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections) Jonathan, all, it is great so see so many contributions on this most important subject. I am more than happy to work on a response with all of you. As Chair of the IGO-INGO PDP WG I am particularly interested in this subject as you can imagine. I would like to highlight a few points: 1. Obviously, we have not managed to convey the message why a PDP is needed in this case. There seems to be the impression that we are doing a PDP - to be difficult or - to slow things down or - because we do not respect treaties or laws. Far from it. We work hard to come up with solutions that serve the community and that help ICANN manage a public good. Had we chosen to allow certain names to be added to the reserved names list (which might have been the easiest solution in terms of time and efforts), even the affected organizations would not be able to use them as no exemption process would have been in place. I guess we need examples such as this that may or may not be part of the outcome of PDP to show the level of diligence in the process. 2. Also, I would like to highlight something that Jeff rightfully pointed out to make sure it is not forgotten in our response: ... other items as policy, thereby requiring extensive involvement from the GNSO community – note I did NOT say necessarily PDP) In my view, the work of the GNSO is often linked to a PDP (or working on consensus policies), which is perceived as a cumbersome and lengthy process. We should emphasize that the Council has more options to chose from when doing its work. We should explain what these are and the Council might choose to demonstrate from time to time (and document that in meetings) that various options are being discussed so that the Council is not seen as operating with one tool only. 3. When discussing implementation reference is made to the GNSO Council recommendations regarding the new gTLD program. We should note that - due to the complexity of that subject - the GNSO policy is quite general at times. In an ideal world, the policy recommendations would have been more detailed. This example is now taken to show that implementation can take over part of the policy work. Certainly, there is no clear demarkation, but we should make that point. If possible, GNSO Council Recommendations should be more detailed than in this case. Also, Marika made a great point referring to IRTs that I would have brought up if she hadn't: The Council should explain that its work does not necessarily end with a resolution, but that policy and implementation go hand in hand and that they should be perceived as complementary parts. The Council should play a more visible role in overseeing implementation to make sure that the implementation reflects accurately the policy recommendations. Thanks, Thomas Am 30.11.2012 um 13:58 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>: Thanks again to Jeff for setting out such a critical issue for discussion and to others for significant input so far. My thought is that we do need to respond, and in a reasonably timely manner (before calendar year end), to the GAC. The feelings / views are clearly strongly held. Therefore, I suggest we move forward with two threads: 1. The key points of a response to the GAC, which will then form the basis for our/my actual reply (I am happy to kick-off / lead this). 2. Continue with this thread (Policy vs. Implementation) in order to develop and refine our thinking and approach on this critical issue. Feel free to support or comment on this approach. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: 30 November 2012 11:03 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections) I also agree that the boarder between policy and implementation is fluent. I wonder whether a clear delimitation would be achievable and solve the problems. In additon it is a question of the roles of GAC and GNSO: "advice" vs "support". In Toronto I've been approached by GAC members asking to be better integrated into the policy development (process). I think we should take this into consideration. A liaison may be one solution to offer. There may be more ideas to discuss. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Volker Greimann Gesendet: Freitag, 30. November 2012 10:41 An: joy@apc.org Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Jonathan Robinson; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections) All, I am in full agreement that a better definition of these terms is necessary and I appreciate staffs efforts in this matter, even though I think this needs broader community involvement. Definitely a session to attend in Beijing, so I would urge staff not to schedule it concurrently with other important sessions. One further consideration is the question if policy "taints" (for lack of a better word; I mean it without the negative connotations here) implementation. I would argue that even if a decision is 90% implementation and 10% policy, it should be enveloped under the umbrella of policy and therefore subject to GNSO approval. Best, Volker -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Jonathan and thanks for forwarding this. Jeff, this is an interesting idea which I've asked for comments on from our constituency group. I think it is a good idea to take a step back from the issues and look strategically at what is happening and why in the GNSO relationship with the GAC. The examples you cite are symptoms, I agree, of a wider problem and they will simply keep happening if not resolved. I'm not convinced getting agreed definitions of "policy" vs "implementation" will resolve some of these issues. But if it is a measure to assist and has community support then the Council should consider it. Thanks for raising this Kind regards Joy On 30/11/2012 3:55 a.m., Neuman, Jeff wrote: All, We have a very serious problem here that needs immediate attention. I am not referring to the merits of whether any of these organizations deserve protection or not, or whether there should be additional safeguards for IP owners in the new gTLD process or whether certain Whois Review team recommendations could be put into place . Forget all of that. Forget the merits and substance of these important issues. The real issue is that new reliance on the terms "policy" vs. "implementation." This is the issue that should receive top priority. To quote Alan Greenberg (or at least paraphrase), when one group wants something in place without using the policy process, they call it "implementation." Those that oppose it, call it "policy." While that statement was made several times by Alan partly in jest, that statement does have merit. Lets look at the following 3 examples: 1. _ IOC/RC_- As the letter sent around by Jonathan shows, the GAC is thoroughly annoyed with the GNSO for starting a policy process on the protection of IOC and Red Cross marks. They believe (although unstated), that they have exclusive jurisdiction over these types of public policy issues and do not want the GNSO to take "years" to work out whether these organizations (which they believe are protected by law) should receive protections in the new gTLD process. Without commenting on the merits of this argument, look at what they have done. They have called the protections as nothing more than "implementation" and therefore, the GNSO should explain itself as to why we believe we have a right to start a policy process on it. After all, implementation can just be enacted by the Board. There is no need for the GNSO to get involved, in their view...nor do they want it. 2. _Whois Review Team_: The ICANN Board sought guidance from the entire Internet community on whether the recommendations involved "implementation" or "policy". Why? Because if it is implementation, there is no need to involve the GNSO community and it can just be enacted. Those that supported the recommendations wholeheartedly called them "implementation." Those that opposed the recommendations called it "policy." I believe that many who called it policy actually truly believe there are policy issues involved, but some called it policy, to have it go through the long drawn out process we call a PDP (with the hopes that it dies a slow death). Neither side of this debate is blameless. 3. _The now infamous New gTLD "straw-man"_: For the record, I was a part of the group that discussed the straw man in Brussels and LA over the past few weeks. I found those discussions very useful and appreciate the efforts being made by the new ICANN CEO, who I have a tremendous amount of respect for. I believe he truly will make a huge positive impact on ICANN for many years to come. But, now the debate has turned into what is policy and what is implementation. The IPC/BC and their representatives have called all of their proposals "implementation". The NCSG, Registries, Registrars and Applicants have called much of it policy. ICANN staff has now weighed in on their thoughts and have classified certain items as implementation (thereby negating the need for GNSO policy development), and other items as policy, thereby requiring extensive involvement from the GNSO community - note I did NOT say necessarily PDP). I believe we all need to take a step back from the issues _immediately_ and decide once and for all an agreed upon bottom-up multi-stakeholder definition of what is "policy" and what is "implementation." Or at the very least a framework for making that assessment when issues arise. I would advocate for a cross community group made up of members from ICANN staff, the GNSO, the GAC and others to come together to figure this issue out, so that we get out of this rut we are now in. At the same time, we need to fix the image of the GNSO policy processes so that they are no longer feared, but embraced. They need to not be used as vehicles for delay, but rather utilized for the common good. If we are able to do this, I believe many of the issues we are now having will become easier to resolve (and we can focus on the merits). If not, I see these issues getting much worse over the coming months/years. I believe the future of the GNSO, and even the multi-stakeholder model in general hinge on the definition of these 2 words. I would be very happy to volunteer to serve on such a group. Thanks. *Jeffrey J. Neuman** **Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs* *From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:00 AM *To:* council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections All, FYI. Please see the attached letter received from the GAC last night my time. Jonathan *From:*GAC Secretariat [mailto:gacsec@gac.icann.org] *Sent:* 28 November 2012 21:38 *To:* jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> *Cc:* Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade; Heather Dryden; Maria Häll; alice@apc.org <mailto:alice@apc.org>; Choon Sai LIM (IDA) *Subject:* Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections Sent on behalf of Heather Dryden, GAC Chair Dear Jonathan, Attached please find a letter from the GAC regarding IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent protections. Best regards, Jeannie Ellers Jeannie Ellers Manager, GAC Coordination Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 1101 New York Avenue NW, Suite 930 Washington, DC 20005 Ph. +1 202 570 7135 M. +1 310 302 7552 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQuCLfAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq2UYIALFsC+nao4XbcAJOAQn8MKC1 9bkXt7+nH68krEvF7ApfgUrO5JIHX9lEFHS25NSS/tq0KW003dp96WNL0QmVoQPj aqn7NWlplQkVY57eBeF7QxUYwum4jZencdtcpIrpAySPa8uk+jBY9sx/nlxVoNYE 8HbLfTlxPr0leeZ9BdZb8oqxzCmr4WpjTGw/UYMxHPEf8fEptkHFHgEQEty9rpyo eSNQnnbjPHPvoliM8rUSfUca1VpFGNYVJJc9Di5I6xNY3Zar4OX0YmTEyD20j7uc 41nCb8yn8RWfgYHCcY4fURxOs5NDuv+JedrFq7Jbil8KBAkiFoAwoJxeJYPQm5A= =i1KX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ___________________________________________________________ Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert HRB 9262, AG Bonn Büro / Office Bonn: Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0 Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.: Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56 Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66 mailto: rickert@anwaelte.de skype-id: trickert web: www.anwaelte.de

I also agree with Jeff that defining the two terms aside from the issues would be necessary. I would however like to add that "implementation" of existing policy may by the way of the interpretation have such a significant impact on stakeholders that community consensus of the form of implementation may become necessary. Best, Volker

Jonathan,

First, this letter makes me more certain we should be emphatic about getting a GAC observer on the Council.

Second, I have heard Jeff Neuman's comment on clarifying what is policy and what is implementation and I agree.

Third, until the GNSO structure changes, the GAC advises the Board and if there are policy questions, the Board engages the Council. Where is the Board on this direct advice to the Council?

Four, look forward to the next Council meeting!

Cheers,

Berard

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 29, 2012, at 4:59 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>> wrote:

...

All,

FYI. Please see the attached letter received from the GAC last night my time.

Jonathan

*From:*GAC Secretariat [mailto:gacsec@gac.icann.org] *Sent:* 28 November 2012 21:38 *To:* jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com <mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> *Cc:* Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade; Heather Dryden; Maria Häll; alice@apc.org <mailto:alice@apc.org>; Choon Sai LIM (IDA) *Subject:* Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections

Sent on behalf of Heather Dryden, GAC Chair

Dear Jonathan,

Attached please find a letter from the GAC regarding IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent protections.

Best regards,

Jeannie Ellers

Jeannie Ellers Manager, GAC Coordination Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 1101 New York Avenue NW, Suite 930

Washington, DC 20005 Ph. +1 202 570 7135 M. +1 310 302 7552

<GAC_GNSOCouncil_20121128.pdf>

-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

I admit to confusion about this as well. With all due respect to the GAC, the IOC/RC issue has been confusing from the start. Roughly: Costa Rica: IOC/RC WG briefs GAC on draft protection, GAC concurs, asks board to act fast on GNSO recs once done. I'm not aware that there was objection to a PDP recommendation then. May 2011: GAC tells board it's looking for "tightly drawn" IOC/RC protection and its aware of no other non-profit that rises to the same level of international protection. Sept 2011: GAC "advises" GNSO on which IOC/RC names to protect, characterizes this as implementation. March 2012: GNSO approves top-level IOC/RC protection April 2012: Board votes down GNSO recommendation (rationale comes later) April 2012: GAC tells board it has considered request for advice on IGO protection; they advise no protections for IGOs for current round beyond what's in the guidebook Prague: GAC says it's considering IGO protection and will provide advice in July Sept 2012: Board asks GNSO to finish IOC/RC and IGO work by Jan 31 2013 Toronto: GAC says IGOs must be protected at top and second levels November 2012: New TLD committee advises GNSO the board has voted to preemptively protect second level IOC/RC and IGO names, pending outcome of GNSO work The takeaway for me is the changing nature of the GAC's communication. I recognize they believe that a) all this is "implementation" and the lack of need for PDPs has been clear from the start, and b) they've been clear about IGO protection. I believe they do believe that and to be clear I'm not accusing anyone of dishonesty at all -- I think from the council's point of view it has not been as clear. If I've missed something (entirely possible) I'm certainly open to correction. What does seem clear is the GAC's expectation that it can and should advise the GNSO and have that advice generally followed. To John's point, it's correct that in writing they are a board advisory group. However, I'm sure we need a better model for interacting with the GAC to avoid things like the confusion above, and to set better methods for productive interaction. I would be happy to be part of the council's effort to make that happen. On Nov 29, 2012, at 7:46 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:

John raises some important points in relation to the GAC's role vis a vis the Council. I agree that this letter highlights the need for the GAC to appoint a liaison.

The GAC, which of course advises the Board, has asked us for the 'rationale' for a Council decision. I would like to be helpful, but aside from directing them to the relevant motion and its attached 'whereas' sequence, what else is there?

As to the GAC's opinion that this relates to merely an implementation issue, we have all seen in the last few weeks that 'implementation issues' can be policy issues, depending on the strength of one's point of view and wish to see that prevail.

As a practical matter regarding the rationale of the group of two dozen people who voted, I don't see what we can provide, other than a link to the motion(s) in question. Am I missing something?

Maria

On 29 November 2012 15:17, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote: I also agree with Jeff that defining the two terms aside from the issues would be necessary. I would however like to add that "implementation" of existing policy may by the way of the interpretation have such a significant impact on stakeholders that community consensus of the form of implementation may become necessary.

Best,

Volker

...

Jonathan,

First, this letter makes me more certain we should be emphatic about getting a GAC observer on the Council.

Second, I have heard Jeff Neuman's comment on clarifying what is policy and what is implementation and I agree.

Third, until the GNSO structure changes, the GAC advises the Board and if there are policy questions, the Board engages the Council. Where is the Board on this direct advice to the Council?

Four, look forward to the next Council meeting!

Cheers,

Berard

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 29, 2012, at 4:59 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> wrote:

...

All,

FYI. Please see the attached letter received from the GAC last night my time.

Jonathan

From: GAC Secretariat [mailto:gacsec@gac.icann.org] Sent: 28 November 2012 21:38 To: jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com Cc: Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade; Heather Dryden; Maria Häll; alice@apc.org; Choon Sai LIM (IDA) Subject: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections

Sent on behalf of Heather Dryden, GAC Chair

Dear Jonathan,

Attached please find a letter from the GAC regarding IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent protections.

Best regards,

Jeannie Ellers

Jeannie Ellers Manager, GAC Coordination Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 1101 New York Avenue NW, Suite 930

Washington, DC 20005 Ph. +1 202 570 7135 M. +1 310 302 7552

<GAC_GNSOCouncil_20121128.pdf>

-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

--------------------------------------------

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann - legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems

CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.