GNSO Council Review of ICANN 65 GAC Communique
Hi all, Attached is the latest and hopefully final version of the Council's review of the ICANN 65 GAC Communique. It references and reinforces previous GNSO Council statements on the relevant topics, as the GAC didn't add anything new in Marrakech. Thanks to Julf and the other volunteers for their contributions. Please review. We will have an opportunity to discuss during our Council call this week. The Board and GAC will meet at the end of July, so we need to get this wrapped up soon. Regards, Keith
Thanks Keith. Thanks Julf. I don’t think that this should be the final version. Julf’s suggestion to refer back to the Abu Dhabi doesn’t make sense to me since events have overtaken that. I think, instead, that we should address the actual GAC advice, namely, a request that the Board write to the GAC and explain why the Board believes it has complied with GAC advice in relationship to this decision. Let’s focus on that and delete the language proposed by Julf and replace it with: “As this Advice from the GAC is merely a request for the Board to explain its actions, the GNSO Council sees little harm in the Board doing so.” Julf, any objection to Keith doing this? Best, Paul This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith via council Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 3:36 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: [council] GNSO Council Review of ICANN 65 GAC Communique Hi all, Attached is the latest and hopefully final version of the Council’s review of the ICANN 65 GAC Communique. It references and reinforces previous GNSO Council statements on the relevant topics, as the GAC didn’t add anything new in Marrakech. Thanks to Julf and the other volunteers for their contributions. Please review. We will have an opportunity to discuss during our Council call this week. The Board and GAC will meet at the end of July, so we need to get this wrapped up soon. Regards, Keith
Thanks, Paul, As we know, the Board doesn't need our approval to do whatever they want. While we might all feel our duty is to try to prevent the Board from doing anything harmful, it might still not be the message we want to communicate. Therefore I believe a neutral formulation, where we stick to our procedural concerns, would be better. That is of course just my personal view. Julf On 17-07-19 17:01, McGrady, Paul D. wrote:
Thanks Keith. Thanks Julf.
I don’t think that this should be the final version. Julf’s suggestion to refer back to the Abu Dhabi doesn’t make sense to me since events have overtaken that. I think, instead, that we should address the actual GAC advice, namely, a request that the Board write to the GAC and explain why the Board believes it has complied with GAC advice in relationship to this decision. Let’s focus on that and delete the language proposed by Julf and replace it with:
“As this Advice from the GAC is merely a request for the Board to explain its actions, the GNSO Council sees little harm in the Board doing so.”
Julf, any objection to Keith doing this?
Best,
Paul
This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
*From:* council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Drazek, Keith via council *Sent:* Wednesday, July 17, 2019 3:36 AM *To:* council@gnso.icann.org *Cc:* gnso-secs@icann.org *Subject:* [council] GNSO Council Review of ICANN 65 GAC Communique
Hi all,
Attached is the latest and hopefully final version of the Council’s review of the ICANN 65 GAC Communique.
It references and reinforces previous GNSO Council statements on the relevant topics, as the GAC didn’t add anything new in Marrakech.
Thanks to Julf and the other volunteers for their contributions.
Please review. We will have an opportunity to discuss during our Council call this week. The Board and GAC will meet at the end of July, so we need to get this wrapped up soon.
Regards,
Keith
_______________________________________________ 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.
Thanks Julf. That is exactly what I am trying to do by suggesting the language I did which addresses the process. GAC has asked for an explanation from the Board and we are saying "hey Board, please do that", nothing more. Referring back to our Abu D. position could be mistakenly taken as us tell the Board they made the wrong decision and we want them to rewind the clock. Can I have substantive comments on my proposed language? For ease it is to delete the language you proposed and replace it with “As this Advice from the GAC is merely a request for the Board to explain its actions, the GNSO Council sees little harm in the Board doing so.” Thanks! Best, Paul -----Original Message----- From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Johan Helsingius Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 12:23 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Review of ICANN 65 GAC Communique Thanks, Paul, As we know, the Board doesn't need our approval to do whatever they want. While we might all feel our duty is to try to prevent the Board from doing anything harmful, it might still not be the message we want to communicate. Therefore I believe a neutral formulation, where we stick to our procedural concerns, would be better. That is of course just my personal view. Julf On 17-07-19 17:01, McGrady, Paul D. wrote:
Thanks Keith. Thanks Julf.
I don’t think that this should be the final version. Julf’s suggestion to refer back to the Abu Dhabi doesn’t make sense to me since events have overtaken that. I think, instead, that we should address the actual GAC advice, namely, a request that the Board write to the GAC and explain why the Board believes it has complied with GAC advice in relationship to this decision. Let’s focus on that and delete the language proposed by Julf and replace it with:
“As this Advice from the GAC is merely a request for the Board to explain its actions, the GNSO Council sees little harm in the Board doing so.”
Julf, any objection to Keith doing this?
Best,
Paul
This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
*From:* council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Drazek, Keith via council *Sent:* Wednesday, July 17, 2019 3:36 AM *To:* council@gnso.icann.org *Cc:* gnso-secs@icann.org *Subject:* [council] GNSO Council Review of ICANN 65 GAC Communique
Hi all,
Attached is the latest and hopefully final version of the Council’s review of the ICANN 65 GAC Communique.
It references and reinforces previous GNSO Council statements on the relevant topics, as the GAC didn’t add anything new in Marrakech.
Thanks to Julf and the other volunteers for their contributions.
Please review. We will have an opportunity to discuss during our Council call this week. The Board and GAC will meet at the end of July, so we need to get this wrapped up soon.
Regards,
Keith
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
This makes sense to me. Thanks, Keith
On Jul 17, 2019, at 8:06 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> wrote:
Thanks Julf. That is exactly what I am trying to do by suggesting the language I did which addresses the process. GAC has asked for an explanation from the Board and we are saying "hey Board, please do that", nothing more. Referring back to our Abu D. position could be mistakenly taken as us tell the Board they made the wrong decision and we want them to rewind the clock.
Can I have substantive comments on my proposed language? For ease it is to delete the language you proposed and replace it with “As this Advice from the GAC is merely a request for the Board to explain its actions, the GNSO Council sees little harm in the Board doing so.”
Thanks!
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Johan Helsingius Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 12:23 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Review of ICANN 65 GAC Communique
Thanks, Paul,
As we know, the Board doesn't need our approval to do whatever they want. While we might all feel our duty is to try to prevent the Board from doing anything harmful, it might still not be the message we want to communicate. Therefore I believe a neutral formulation, where we stick to our procedural concerns, would be better. That is of course just my personal view.
Julf
On 17-07-19 17:01, McGrady, Paul D. wrote: Thanks Keith. Thanks Julf.
I don’t think that this should be the final version. Julf’s suggestion to refer back to the Abu Dhabi doesn’t make sense to me since events have overtaken that. I think, instead, that we should address the actual GAC advice, namely, a request that the Board write to the GAC and explain why the Board believes it has complied with GAC advice in relationship to this decision. Let’s focus on that and delete the language proposed by Julf and replace it with:
“As this Advice from the GAC is merely a request for the Board to explain its actions, the GNSO Council sees little harm in the Board doing so.”
Julf, any objection to Keith doing this?
Best,
Paul
This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
*From:* council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Drazek, Keith via council *Sent:* Wednesday, July 17, 2019 3:36 AM *To:* council@gnso.icann.org *Cc:* gnso-secs@icann.org *Subject:* [council] GNSO Council Review of ICANN 65 GAC Communique
Hi all,
Attached is the latest and hopefully final version of the Council’s review of the ICANN 65 GAC Communique.
It references and reinforces previous GNSO Council statements on the relevant topics, as the GAC didn’t add anything new in Marrakech.
Thanks to Julf and the other volunteers for their contributions.
Please review. We will have an opportunity to discuss during our Council call this week. The Board and GAC will meet at the end of July, so we need to get this wrapped up soon.
Regards,
Keith
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
Thanks, Paul. I made the change you suggested. Julf On 17-07-19 20:05, McGrady, Paul D. wrote:
Thanks Julf. That is exactly what I am trying to do by suggesting the language I did which addresses the process. GAC has asked for an explanation from the Board and we are saying "hey Board, please do that", nothing more. Referring back to our Abu D. position could be mistakenly taken as us tell the Board they made the wrong decision and we want them to rewind the clock.
Can I have substantive comments on my proposed language? For ease it is to delete the language you proposed and replace it with “As this Advice from the GAC is merely a request for the Board to explain its actions, the GNSO Council sees little harm in the Board doing so.”
Thanks!
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Johan Helsingius Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 12:23 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Review of ICANN 65 GAC Communique
Thanks, Paul,
As we know, the Board doesn't need our approval to do whatever they want. While we might all feel our duty is to try to prevent the Board from doing anything harmful, it might still not be the message we want to communicate. Therefore I believe a neutral formulation, where we stick to our procedural concerns, would be better. That is of course just my personal view.
Julf
On 17-07-19 17:01, McGrady, Paul D. wrote:
Thanks Keith. Thanks Julf.
I don’t think that this should be the final version. Julf’s suggestion to refer back to the Abu Dhabi doesn’t make sense to me since events have overtaken that. I think, instead, that we should address the actual GAC advice, namely, a request that the Board write to the GAC and explain why the Board believes it has complied with GAC advice in relationship to this decision. Let’s focus on that and delete the language proposed by Julf and replace it with:
“As this Advice from the GAC is merely a request for the Board to explain its actions, the GNSO Council sees little harm in the Board doing so.”
Julf, any objection to Keith doing this?
Best,
Paul
This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
*From:* council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Drazek, Keith via council *Sent:* Wednesday, July 17, 2019 3:36 AM *To:* council@gnso.icann.org *Cc:* gnso-secs@icann.org *Subject:* [council] GNSO Council Review of ICANN 65 GAC Communique
Hi all,
Attached is the latest and hopefully final version of the Council’s review of the ICANN 65 GAC Communique.
It references and reinforces previous GNSO Council statements on the relevant topics, as the GAC didn’t add anything new in Marrakech.
Thanks to Julf and the other volunteers for their contributions.
Please review. We will have an opportunity to discuss during our Council call this week. The Board and GAC will meet at the end of July, so we need to get this wrapped up soon.
Regards,
Keith
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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)
-
Drazek, Keith -
Johan Helsingius -
McGrady, Paul D.