Early draft: questions for our sessions with the Board and the GAC tomorrow
Board Red Cross and Olympic Committee names: the GNSO is getting mixed messages from the Board and Staff. What exactly is expected of the GNSO in terms of policy development? If we send you a mtion this week, will you act on it? Presenter: Alan Greenberg WHOIS RT final report recommendation implementation: a discussion of the policy issues here versus the expectations that some may have that these recommendations could be implemented straight away. Presenter: Jeff Neuman IANA contract: can you provide any further information on this? Presenter: Stéphane Van Gelder RAA: under what circumstances will the Board request the GNSO initiate a PDP on this topic? Presenter: Mary Wong GAC What are the GAC member's view on The PDP process includes a specific component to ensure freedom of expression. Presenter: Joy Liddicoat RAA: Update from registrars. Why does the GAC think pushing for Whois verification will resolve cybercrime, and will you push for the same level of verification for all TLDs worldwide, including ccTLDs? Presenter: Mason Cole General suggestion from Jonathan Robinson There are issues within each of these topics that we have grappled with and we would like to have a discussion with you on those issues.
Sounds good for me wolfgang ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Sa 10.03.2012 20:37 An: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Betreff: [council] Early draft: questions for our sessions with the Board and the GAC tomorrow Board Red Cross and Olympic Committee names: the GNSO is getting mixed messages from the Board and Staff. What exactly is expected of the GNSO in terms of policy development? If we send you a mtion this week, will you act on it? Presenter: Alan Greenberg WHOIS RT final report recommendation implementation: a discussion of the policy issues here versus the expectations that some may have that these recommendations could be implemented straight away. Presenter: Jeff Neuman IANA contract: can you provide any further information on this? Presenter: Stéphane Van Gelder RAA: under what circumstances will the Board request the GNSO initiate a PDP on this topic? Presenter: Mary Wong GAC What are the GAC member's view on The PDP process includes a specific component to ensure freedom of expression. Presenter: Joy Liddicoat RAA: Update from registrars. Why does the GAC think pushing for Whois verification will resolve cybercrime, and will you push for the same level of verification for all TLDs worldwide, including ccTLDs? Presenter: Mason Cole General suggestion from Jonathan Robinson There are issues within each of these topics that we have grappled with and we would like to have a discussion with you on those issues.
an input on IANA topic for the Board: expansion of the IANA topic: We expect the Board will amend and submit a revised ICANN proposal that addresses what NTIA says was lacking in the first proposal. Question: will the Council need to undertake any policy development to enable the revised proposal? Why I suggest this: For instance, will Council need to develop definitions and an evaluation process on whether a new gTLD is in the "Global Public Interest"? For context something NTIA said: Based on the input received from stakeholders around the world, NTIA added new requirements to the IANA functions’ statement of work, including the need for structural separation of policymaking from implementation, a robust companywide conflict of interest policy, provisions reflecting heightened respect for local country laws, and a series of consultation and reporting requirements to increase transparency and accountability to the international community. Best regards, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. Sent from my iPad On 10 Mar 2012, at 13:37, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> wrote:
Board
Red Cross and Olympic Committee names: the GNSO is getting mixed messages from the Board and Staff. What exactly is expected of the GNSO in terms of policy development? If we send you a mtion this week, will you act on it?
Presenter: Alan Greenberg
WHOIS RT final report recommendation implementation: a discussion of the policy issues here versus the expectations that some may have that these recommendations could be implemented straight away.
Presenter: Jeff Neuman
IANA contract: can you provide any further information on this?
Presenter: Stéphane Van Gelder
RAA: under what circumstances will the Board request the GNSO initiate a PDP on this topic?
Presenter: Mary Wong
GAC
What are the GAC member's view on The PDP process includes a specific component to ensure freedom of expression.
Presenter: Joy Liddicoat
RAA: Update from registrars. Why does the GAC think pushing for Whois verification will resolve cybercrime, and will you push for the same level of verification for all TLDs worldwide, including ccTLDs?
Presenter: Mason Cole
General suggestion from Jonathan Robinson
There are issues within each of these topics that we have grappled with and we would like to have a discussion with you on those issues.
Sub-question to the GAC discussion on RAA: How can the GNSO engage the GAC in discussion about the LEA recommendations, such as verification and regulations on privacy/proxy providers, so that the negotiations reflect realistic options from the viewpoint of the community? We need to have these discussions in parallel, rather than having an unacceptable agreement come back to Council and be rejected on Policy grounds. --Wendy On 03/10/2012 02:37 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Board
Red Cross and Olympic Committee names: the GNSO is getting mixed messages from the Board and Staff. What exactly is expected of the GNSO in terms of policy development? If we send you a mtion this week, will you act on it?
Presenter: Alan Greenberg
WHOIS RT final report recommendation implementation: a discussion of the policy issues here versus the expectations that some may have that these recommendations could be implemented straight away.
Presenter: Jeff Neuman
IANA contract: can you provide any further information on this?
Presenter: Stéphane Van Gelder
RAA: under what circumstances will the Board request the GNSO initiate a PDP on this topic?
Presenter: Mary Wong
GAC
What are the GAC member's view on The PDP process includes a specific component to ensure freedom of expression.
Presenter: Joy Liddicoat
RAA: Update from registrars. Why does the GAC think pushing for Whois verification will resolve cybercrime, and will you push for the same level of verification for all TLDs worldwide, including ccTLDs?
Presenter: Mason Cole
Sub-question: How can the GNSO engage the GAC in discussion about the LEA recommendations, such as verification and regulations on privacy/proxy providers, so that the negotiations reflect realistic options from the viewpoint of the community?
General suggestion from Jonathan Robinson
There are issues within each of these topics that we have grappled with and we would like to have a discussion with you on those issues.
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
Councillors, My thanks to those who have already made comments or sent edits to the list I sent earlier. Here is a new version of the list, which includes those comments. I have also added the suggested Board questions to us at the end of the document. Stéphane Board Red Cross and Olympic Committee names: the GNSO is getting mixed messages from the Board and Staff. What exactly is expected of the GNSO in terms of policy development? If we send you a mtion this week, will you act on it? Presenter: Alan Greenberg WHOIS RT final report recommendation implementation: a discussion of the policy issues here versus the expectations that some may have that these recommendations could be implemented straight away. Presenter: Jeff Neuman IANA contract: can you provide any further information on this? We expect the Board will amend and submit a revised ICANN proposal that addresses what NTIA says was lacking in the first proposal. Question: will the Council need to undertake any policy development to enable the revised proposal? Presenter: Stéphane Van Gelder RAA: The Board's Dakar resolution requested an Issue Report for a PDP "as quickly as possible" to address "remaining items that may be suited for a PDP" relating to the RAA. Given that negotiations are ongoing on certain topics between ICANN staff and the Registrars Stakeholder Group, and that the Final Report on the RAA was just issued (on which the Council will be expected to act) is it the Board's expectation that the time frame and specific topics for a PDP will be dependent on the duration and outcome of the negotiations? What is the Board's view on the relationship between the scope of the topics to be negotiated directly and that for a PDP, especially as regards topics that may be considered policy matters? Presenter: Mary Wong GAC What advice can the GAC give the GNSO about the human rights impact assessment requirements of the PDP in light of the United Nations Human Rights Councils recent HRC Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet? For more background see reports about the Geneva Human Rights Council Session: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CnrqLUZ4hpEaCD_kxC0-FRTL_f8Hu_cKbxYT9fkt... http://www.ccianet.org/index.asp?bid=89&BlogEntryID=224&FormID=300&catid=0 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-j-black/uns-itu-could-become-next_b_133... Presenter: Joy Liddicoat RAA: Update from registrars. Why does the GAC think pushing for Whois verification will resolve cybercrime, and will you push for the same level of verification for all TLDs worldwide, including ccTLDs? Another question (Wendy): How can the GNSO engage the GAC in discussion about the LEA recommendations, such as verification and regulations on privacy/proxy providers, so that the negotiations reflect realistic options from the viewpoint of the community? We need to have these discussions in parallel, rather than having an unacceptable agreement come back to Council and be rejected on Policy grounds. Presenter: Mason Cole General suggestion from Jonathan Robinson There are issues within each of these topics that we have grappled with and we would like to have a discussion with you on those issues. Possible questions from the Board: What will be in your view the medium-term impact of the new gTLD program on the structure of ICANN in general, and challenges it brings to the gNSO, its constituencies and policy development process. What are the potential issues and how to anticipate them?" this I s a question they would like to have all parts of the community starting to consider. Another question is: What is the view on the need for stronger protections against defensive registrations at the second level, and a shift to WHOIS data authentication at time of data submission? Resolution of conflict with NPOC. What is the Council's mid-term policy development calendar?
I have a comment on the topic for the GAC addressing human rights. I just want to make sure that we understand what is in the PDP, because I think there may be some interpretations that are being made that were not intended. What the PDP states actually states is: The initial report should contain the following elements . . . ."A statement on the WG discussion concerning impact of the proposed recommendations, which could consider areas such as economic, competition, operations, privacy and other rights, scalability and feasibility." There was a lot of history to that statement. The term "rights" was meant to include human rights, intellectual property rights, etc. But to state that there must be an impact analysis on human rights for all PDPs is not necessarily the case. Therefore, I have an issue talking with the GAC about the assessment of the impact of human rights being a requirement of PDP. It is not a requirement, but it is an area that COULD be considered. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 4:07 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: [council] Re: Early draft: questions for our sessions with the Board and the GAC tomorrow Councillors, My thanks to those who have already made comments or sent edits to the list I sent earlier. Here is a new version of the list, which includes those comments. I have also added the suggested Board questions to us at the end of the document. Stéphane Board Red Cross and Olympic Committee names: the GNSO is getting mixed messages from the Board and Staff. What exactly is expected of the GNSO in terms of policy development? If we send you a mtion this week, will you act on it? Presenter: Alan Greenberg WHOIS RT final report recommendation implementation: a discussion of the policy issues here versus the expectations that some may have that these recommendations could be implemented straight away. Presenter: Jeff Neuman IANA contract: can you provide any further information on this? We expect the Board will amend and submit a revised ICANN proposal that addresses what NTIA says was lacking in the first proposal. Question: will the Council need to undertake any policy development to enable the revised proposal? Presenter: Stéphane Van Gelder RAA: The Board's Dakar resolution requested an Issue Report for a PDP "as quickly as possible" to address "remaining items that may be suited for a PDP" relating to the RAA. Given that negotiations are ongoing on certain topics between ICANN staff and the Registrars Stakeholder Group, and that the Final Report on the RAA was just issued (on which the Council will be expected to act) is it the Board's expectation that the time frame and specific topics for a PDP will be dependent on the duration and outcome of the negotiations? What is the Board's view on the relationship between the scope of the topics to be negotiated directly and that for a PDP, especially as regards topics that may be considered policy matters? Presenter: Mary Wong GAC What advice can the GAC give the GNSO about the human rights impact assessment requirements of the PDP in light of the United Nations Human Rights Councils recent HRC Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet? For more background see reports about the Geneva Human Rights Council Session: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CnrqLUZ4hpEaCD_kxC0-FRTL_f8Hu_cKbxYT9fktj5E/edit?pli=1#<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CnrqLUZ4hpEaCD_kxC0-FRTL_f8Hu_cKbxYT9fktj5E/edit?pli=1> http://www.ccianet.org/index.asp?bid=89&BlogEntryID=224&FormID=300&catid=0 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-j-black/uns-itu-could-become-next_b_133... Presenter: Joy Liddicoat RAA: Update from registrars. Why does the GAC think pushing for Whois verification will resolve cybercrime, and will you push for the same level of verification for all TLDs worldwide, including ccTLDs? Another question (Wendy): How can the GNSO engage the GAC in discussion about the LEA recommendations, such as verification and regulations on privacy/proxy providers, so that the negotiations reflect realistic options from the viewpoint of the community? We need to have these discussions in parallel, rather than having an unacceptable agreement come back to Council and be rejected on Policy grounds. Presenter: Mason Cole General suggestion from Jonathan Robinson There are issues within each of these topics that we have grappled with and we would like to have a discussion with you on those issues. Possible questions from the Board: What will be in your view the medium-term impact of the new gTLD program on the structure of ICANN in general, and challenges it brings to the gNSO, its constituencies and policy development process. What are the potential issues and how to anticipate them?" this I s a question they would like to have all parts of the community starting to consider. Another question is: What is the view on the need for stronger protections against defensive registrations at the second level, and a shift to WHOIS data authentication at time of data submission? Resolution of conflict with NPOC. What is the Council's mid-term policy development calendar?
Thanks Jeff. Just for clarification, I suppose you are talking about the PDP manual right? In light of Jeff's comment, we should discuss tomorrow whether we want to keep this in the list or not. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 10 mars 2012 à 23:36, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
I have a comment on the topic for the GAC addressing human rights.
I just want to make sure that we understand what is in the PDP, because I think there may be some interpretations that are being made that were not intended.
What the PDP states actually states is:
The initial report should contain the following elements . . . ."A statement on the WG discussion concerning impact of the proposed recommendations, which could consider areas such as economic, competition, operations, privacy and other rights, scalability and feasibility."
There was a lot of history to that statement. The term "rights" was meant to include human rights, intellectual property rights, etc. But to state that there must be an impact analysis on human rights for all PDPs is not necessarily the case.
Therefore, I have an issue talking with the GAC about the assessment of the impact of human rights being a requirement of PDP. It is not a requirement, but it is an area that COULD be considered.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 4:07 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: [council] Re: Early draft: questions for our sessions with the Board and the GAC tomorrow
Councillors,
My thanks to those who have already made comments or sent edits to the list I sent earlier.
Here is a new version of the list, which includes those comments. I have also added the suggested Board questions to us at the end of the document.
Stéphane
Board Red Cross and Olympic Committee names: the GNSO is getting mixed messages from the Board and Staff. What exactly is expected of the GNSO in terms of policy development? If we send you a mtion this week, will you act on it? Presenter: Alan Greenberg
WHOIS RT final report recommendation implementation: a discussion of the policy issues here versus the expectations that some may have that these recommendations could be implemented straight away. Presenter: Jeff Neuman
IANA contract: can you provide any further information on this? We expect the Board will amend and submit a revised ICANN proposal that addresses what NTIA says was lacking in the first proposal. Question: will the Council need to undertake any policy development to enable the revised proposal? Presenter: Stéphane Van Gelder
RAA: The Board's Dakar resolution requested an Issue Report for a PDP "as quickly as possible" to address "remaining items that may be suited for a PDP" relating to the RAA. Given that negotiations are ongoing on certain topics between ICANN staff and the Registrars Stakeholder Group, and that the Final Report on the RAA was just issued (on which the Council will be expected to act) is it the Board's expectation that the time frame and specific topics for a PDP will be dependent on the duration and outcome of the negotiations? What is the Board's view on the relationship between the scope of the topics to be negotiated directly and that for a PDP, especially as regards topics that may be considered policy matters? Presenter: Mary Wong
GAC What advice can the GAC give the GNSO about the human rights impact assessment requirements of the PDP in light of the United Nations Human Rights Councils recent HRC Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet? For more background see reports about the Geneva Human Rights Council Session: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CnrqLUZ4hpEaCD_kxC0-FRTL_f8Hu_cKbxYT9fkt...
http://www.ccianet.org/index.asp?bid=89&BlogEntryID=224&FormID=300&catid=0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-j-black/uns-itu-could-become-next_b_133... Presenter: Joy Liddicoat
RAA: Update from registrars. Why does the GAC think pushing for Whois verification will resolve cybercrime, and will you push for the same level of verification for all TLDs worldwide, including ccTLDs? Another question (Wendy): How can the GNSO engage the GAC in discussion about the LEA recommendations, such as verification and regulations on privacy/proxy providers, so that the negotiations reflect realistic options from the viewpoint of the community? We need to have these discussions in parallel, rather than having an unacceptable agreement come back to Council and be rejected on Policy grounds. Presenter: Mason Cole
General suggestion from Jonathan Robinson There are issues within each of these topics that we have grappled with and we would like to have a discussion with you on those issues.
Possible questions from the Board:
What will be in your view the medium-term impact of the new gTLD program on the structure of ICANN in general, and challenges it brings to the gNSO, its constituencies and policy development process. What are the potential issues and how to anticipate them?" this I s a question they would like to have all parts of the community starting to consider.
Another question is: What is the view on the need for stronger protections against defensive registrations at the second level, and a shift to WHOIS data authentication at time of data submission?
Resolution of conflict with NPOC.
What is the Council's mid-term policy development calendar?
Thanks Jeff as mentioned offlist, my reference was to the requirement for an analysis (which includes some rights aspects). But by all means lets discuss tomorrow this and the other helpful suggestions about how to introduce this topic. Cheers Joy From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Sunday, 11 March 2012 11:40 a.m. To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Re: Early draft: questions for our sessions with the Board and the GAC tomorrow Thanks Jeff. Just for clarification, I suppose you are talking about the PDP manual right? In light of Jeff's comment, we should discuss tomorrow whether we want to keep this in the list or not. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 10 mars 2012 à 23:36, Neuman, Jeff a écrit : I have a comment on the topic for the GAC addressing human rights. I just want to make sure that we understand what is in the PDP, because I think there may be some interpretations that are being made that were not intended. What the PDP states actually states is: The initial report should contain the following elements . . . ."A statement on the WG discussion concerning impact of the proposed recommendations, which could consider areas such as economic, competition, operations, privacy and other rights, scalability and feasibility." There was a lot of history to that statement. The term "rights" was meant to include human rights, intellectual property rights, etc. But to state that there must be an impact analysis on human rights for all PDPs is not necessarily the case. Therefore, I have an issue talking with the GAC about the assessment of the impact of human rights being a requirement of PDP. It is not a requirement, but it is an area that COULD be considered. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs _____ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 4:07 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: [council] Re: Early draft: questions for our sessions with the Board and the GAC tomorrow Councillors, My thanks to those who have already made comments or sent edits to the list I sent earlier. Here is a new version of the list, which includes those comments. I have also added the suggested Board questions to us at the end of the document. Stéphane Board Red Cross and Olympic Committee names: the GNSO is getting mixed messages from the Board and Staff. What exactly is expected of the GNSO in terms of policy development? If we send you a mtion this week, will you act on it? Presenter: Alan Greenberg WHOIS RT final report recommendation implementation: a discussion of the policy issues here versus the expectations that some may have that these recommendations could be implemented straight away. Presenter: Jeff Neuman IANA contract: can you provide any further information on this? We expect the Board will amend and submit a revised ICANN proposal that addresses what NTIA says was lacking in the first proposal. Question: will the Council need to undertake any policy development to enable the revised proposal? Presenter: Stéphane Van Gelder RAA: The Board's Dakar resolution requested an Issue Report for a PDP "as quickly as possible" to address "remaining items that may be suited for a PDP" relating to the RAA. Given that negotiations are ongoing on certain topics between ICANN staff and the Registrars Stakeholder Group, and that the Final Report on the RAA was just issued (on which the Council will be expected to act) is it the Board's expectation that the time frame and specific topics for a PDP will be dependent on the duration and outcome of the negotiations? What is the Board's view on the relationship between the scope of the topics to be negotiated directly and that for a PDP, especially as regards topics that may be considered policy matters? Presenter: Mary Wong GAC What advice can the GAC give the GNSO about the human rights impact assessment requirements of the PDP in light of the United Nations Human Rights Councils recent HRC Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet? For more background see reports about the Geneva Human Rights Council Session: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CnrqLUZ4hpEaCD_kxC0-FRTL_f8Hu_cKbxYT9fkt j5E/edit?pli=1# <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CnrqLUZ4hpEaCD_kxC0-FRTL_f8Hu_cKbxYT9fk tj5E/edit?pli=1> http://www.ccianet.org/index.asp?bid=89 <http://www.ccianet.org/index.asp?bid=89&BlogEntryID=224&FormID=300&catid=0> &BlogEntryID=224&FormID=300&catid=0 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-j-black/uns-itu-could-become-next_b_133 2768.html Presenter: Joy Liddicoat RAA: Update from registrars. Why does the GAC think pushing for Whois verification will resolve cybercrime, and will you push for the same level of verification for all TLDs worldwide, including ccTLDs? Another question (Wendy): How can the GNSO engage the GAC in discussion about the LEA recommendations, such as verification and regulations on privacy/proxy providers, so that the negotiations reflect realistic options from the viewpoint of the community? We need to have these discussions in parallel, rather than having an unacceptable agreement come back to Council and be rejected on Policy grounds. Presenter: Mason Cole General suggestion from Jonathan Robinson There are issues within each of these topics that we have grappled with and we would like to have a discussion with you on those issues. Possible questions from the Board: What will be in your view the medium-term impact of the new gTLD program on the structure of ICANN in general, and challenges it brings to the gNSO, its constituencies and policy development process. What are the potential issues and how to anticipate them?" this I s a question they would like to have all parts of the community starting to consider. Another question is: What is the view on the need for stronger protections against defensive registrations at the second level, and a shift to WHOIS data authentication at time of data submission? Resolution of conflict with NPOC. What is the Council's mid-term policy development calendar?
Good point. It seems to me that we could phrase it more along the following lines: Is the GAC aware of the recent HRC Panel on Freedom of expression and the Internet? If so, and in any event, it has come to the attention of the GNSO Council and we were interested to hear GAC views on this. In particular, an HR impact assessment may well provide a very different perspective on any given PDP process (relative to say LEA, IP perspectives). The GNSO view is that this is something that could be considered in future. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: 10 March 2012 16:37 To: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Re: Early draft: questions for our sessions with the Board and the GAC tomorrow I have a comment on the topic for the GAC addressing human rights. I just want to make sure that we understand what is in the PDP, because I think there may be some interpretations that are being made that were not intended. What the PDP states actually states is: The initial report should contain the following elements . . . ."A statement on the WG discussion concerning impact of the proposed recommendations, which could consider areas such as economic, competition, operations, privacy and other rights, scalability and feasibility." There was a lot of history to that statement. The term "rights" was meant to include human rights, intellectual property rights, etc. But to state that there must be an impact analysis on human rights for all PDPs is not necessarily the case. Therefore, I have an issue talking with the GAC about the assessment of the impact of human rights being a requirement of PDP. It is not a requirement, but it is an area that COULD be considered. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs _____ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 4:07 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: [council] Re: Early draft: questions for our sessions with the Board and the GAC tomorrow Councillors, My thanks to those who have already made comments or sent edits to the list I sent earlier. Here is a new version of the list, which includes those comments. I have also added the suggested Board questions to us at the end of the document. Stéphane Board Red Cross and Olympic Committee names: the GNSO is getting mixed messages from the Board and Staff. What exactly is expected of the GNSO in terms of policy development? If we send you a mtion this week, will you act on it? Presenter: Alan Greenberg WHOIS RT final report recommendation implementation: a discussion of the policy issues here versus the expectations that some may have that these recommendations could be implemented straight away. Presenter: Jeff Neuman IANA contract: can you provide any further information on this? We expect the Board will amend and submit a revised ICANN proposal that addresses what NTIA says was lacking in the first proposal. Question: will the Council need to undertake any policy development to enable the revised proposal? Presenter: Stéphane Van Gelder RAA: The Board's Dakar resolution requested an Issue Report for a PDP "as quickly as possible" to address "remaining items that may be suited for a PDP" relating to the RAA. Given that negotiations are ongoing on certain topics between ICANN staff and the Registrars Stakeholder Group, and that the Final Report on the RAA was just issued (on which the Council will be expected to act) is it the Board's expectation that the time frame and specific topics for a PDP will be dependent on the duration and outcome of the negotiations? What is the Board's view on the relationship between the scope of the topics to be negotiated directly and that for a PDP, especially as regards topics that may be considered policy matters? Presenter: Mary Wong GAC What advice can the GAC give the GNSO about the human rights impact assessment requirements of the PDP in light of the United Nations Human Rights Councils recent HRC Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet? For more background see reports about the Geneva Human Rights Council Session: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CnrqLUZ4hpEaCD_kxC0-FRTL_f8Hu_cKbxYT9fkt j5E/edit?pli=1# <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CnrqLUZ4hpEaCD_kxC0-FRTL_f8Hu_cKbxYT9fk tj5E/edit?pli=1> http://www.ccianet.org/index.asp?bid=89 <http://www.ccianet.org/index.asp?bid=89&BlogEntryID=224&FormID=300&catid=0> &BlogEntryID=224&FormID=300&catid=0 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-j-black/uns-itu-could-become-next_b_133 2768.html Presenter: Joy Liddicoat RAA: Update from registrars. Why does the GAC think pushing for Whois verification will resolve cybercrime, and will you push for the same level of verification for all TLDs worldwide, including ccTLDs? Another question (Wendy): How can the GNSO engage the GAC in discussion about the LEA recommendations, such as verification and regulations on privacy/proxy providers, so that the negotiations reflect realistic options from the viewpoint of the community? We need to have these discussions in parallel, rather than having an unacceptable agreement come back to Council and be rejected on Policy grounds. Presenter: Mason Cole General suggestion from Jonathan Robinson There are issues within each of these topics that we have grappled with and we would like to have a discussion with you on those issues. Possible questions from the Board: What will be in your view the medium-term impact of the new gTLD program on the structure of ICANN in general, and challenges it brings to the gNSO, its constituencies and policy development process. What are the potential issues and how to anticipate them?" this I s a question they would like to have all parts of the community starting to consider. Another question is: What is the view on the need for stronger protections against defensive registrations at the second level, and a shift to WHOIS data authentication at time of data submission? Resolution of conflict with NPOC. What is the Council's mid-term policy development calendar?
Resent From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: 10 March 2012 17:01 To: 'Neuman, Jeff'; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Re: Early draft: questions for our sessions with the Board and the GAC tomorrow Good point. It seems to me that we could phrase it more along the following lines: Is the GAC aware of the recent HRC Panel on Freedom of expression and the Internet? If so, and in any event, it has come to the attention of the GNSO Council and we were interested to hear GAC views on this. In particular, an HR impact assessment may well provide a very different perspective on any given PDP process (relative to say LEA, IP perspectives). The GNSO view is that this is something that could be considered in future. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: 10 March 2012 16:37 To: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Re: Early draft: questions for our sessions with the Board and the GAC tomorrow I have a comment on the topic for the GAC addressing human rights. I just want to make sure that we understand what is in the PDP, because I think there may be some interpretations that are being made that were not intended. What the PDP states actually states is: The initial report should contain the following elements . . . ."A statement on the WG discussion concerning impact of the proposed recommendations, which could consider areas such as economic, competition, operations, privacy and other rights, scalability and feasibility." There was a lot of history to that statement. The term "rights" was meant to include human rights, intellectual property rights, etc. But to state that there must be an impact analysis on human rights for all PDPs is not necessarily the case. Therefore, I have an issue talking with the GAC about the assessment of the impact of human rights being a requirement of PDP. It is not a requirement, but it is an area that COULD be considered. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs _____ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 4:07 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: [council] Re: Early draft: questions for our sessions with the Board and the GAC tomorrow Councillors, My thanks to those who have already made comments or sent edits to the list I sent earlier. Here is a new version of the list, which includes those comments. I have also added the suggested Board questions to us at the end of the document. Stéphane Board Red Cross and Olympic Committee names: the GNSO is getting mixed messages from the Board and Staff. What exactly is expected of the GNSO in terms of policy development? If we send you a mtion this week, will you act on it? Presenter: Alan Greenberg WHOIS RT final report recommendation implementation: a discussion of the policy issues here versus the expectations that some may have that these recommendations could be implemented straight away. Presenter: Jeff Neuman IANA contract: can you provide any further information on this? We expect the Board will amend and submit a revised ICANN proposal that addresses what NTIA says was lacking in the first proposal. Question: will the Council need to undertake any policy development to enable the revised proposal? Presenter: Stéphane Van Gelder RAA: The Board's Dakar resolution requested an Issue Report for a PDP "as quickly as possible" to address "remaining items that may be suited for a PDP" relating to the RAA. Given that negotiations are ongoing on certain topics between ICANN staff and the Registrars Stakeholder Group, and that the Final Report on the RAA was just issued (on which the Council will be expected to act) is it the Board's expectation that the time frame and specific topics for a PDP will be dependent on the duration and outcome of the negotiations? What is the Board's view on the relationship between the scope of the topics to be negotiated directly and that for a PDP, especially as regards topics that may be considered policy matters? Presenter: Mary Wong GAC What advice can the GAC give the GNSO about the human rights impact assessment requirements of the PDP in light of the United Nations Human Rights Councils recent HRC Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet? For more background see reports about the Geneva Human Rights Council Session: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CnrqLUZ4hpEaCD_kxC0-FRTL_f8Hu_cKbxYT9fkt j5E/edit?pli=1# <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CnrqLUZ4hpEaCD_kxC0-FRTL_f8Hu_cKbxYT9fk tj5E/edit?pli=1> http://www.ccianet.org/index.asp?bid=89 <http://www.ccianet.org/index.asp?bid=89&BlogEntryID=224&FormID=300&catid=0> &BlogEntryID=224&FormID=300&catid=0 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-j-black/uns-itu-could-become-next_b_133 2768.html Presenter: Joy Liddicoat RAA: Update from registrars. Why does the GAC think pushing for Whois verification will resolve cybercrime, and will you push for the same level of verification for all TLDs worldwide, including ccTLDs? Another question (Wendy): How can the GNSO engage the GAC in discussion about the LEA recommendations, such as verification and regulations on privacy/proxy providers, so that the negotiations reflect realistic options from the viewpoint of the community? We need to have these discussions in parallel, rather than having an unacceptable agreement come back to Council and be rejected on Policy grounds. Presenter: Mason Cole General suggestion from Jonathan Robinson There are issues within each of these topics that we have grappled with and we would like to have a discussion with you on those issues. Possible questions from the Board: What will be in your view the medium-term impact of the new gTLD program on the structure of ICANN in general, and challenges it brings to the gNSO, its constituencies and policy development process. What are the potential issues and how to anticipate them?" this I s a question they would like to have all parts of the community starting to consider. Another question is: What is the view on the need for stronger protections against defensive registrations at the second level, and a shift to WHOIS data authentication at time of data submission? Resolution of conflict with NPOC. What is the Council's mid-term policy development calendar?
Hi Stephane just forwarding this from Jonathan in case you cant find it Joy From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Sunday, 11 March 2012 12:01 p.m. To: 'Neuman, Jeff'; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Re: Early draft: questions for our sessions with the Board and the GAC tomorrow Good point. It seems to me that we could phrase it more along the following lines: Is the GAC aware of the recent HRC Panel on Freedom of expression and the Internet? If so, and in any event, it has come to the attention of the GNSO Council and we were interested to hear GAC views on this. In particular, an HR impact assessment may well provide a very different perspective on any given PDP process (relative to say LEA, IP perspectives). The GNSO view is that this is something that could be considered in future. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: 10 March 2012 16:37 To: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Re: Early draft: questions for our sessions with the Board and the GAC tomorrow I have a comment on the topic for the GAC addressing human rights. I just want to make sure that we understand what is in the PDP, because I think there may be some interpretations that are being made that were not intended. What the PDP states actually states is: The initial report should contain the following elements . . . ."A statement on the WG discussion concerning impact of the proposed recommendations, which could consider areas such as economic, competition, operations, privacy and other rights, scalability and feasibility." There was a lot of history to that statement. The term "rights" was meant to include human rights, intellectual property rights, etc. But to state that there must be an impact analysis on human rights for all PDPs is not necessarily the case. Therefore, I have an issue talking with the GAC about the assessment of the impact of human rights being a requirement of PDP. It is not a requirement, but it is an area that COULD be considered. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs _____ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 4:07 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: [council] Re: Early draft: questions for our sessions with the Board and the GAC tomorrow Councillors, My thanks to those who have already made comments or sent edits to the list I sent earlier. Here is a new version of the list, which includes those comments. I have also added the suggested Board questions to us at the end of the document. Stéphane Board Red Cross and Olympic Committee names: the GNSO is getting mixed messages from the Board and Staff. What exactly is expected of the GNSO in terms of policy development? If we send you a mtion this week, will you act on it? Presenter: Alan Greenberg WHOIS RT final report recommendation implementation: a discussion of the policy issues here versus the expectations that some may have that these recommendations could be implemented straight away. Presenter: Jeff Neuman IANA contract: can you provide any further information on this? We expect the Board will amend and submit a revised ICANN proposal that addresses what NTIA says was lacking in the first proposal. Question: will the Council need to undertake any policy development to enable the revised proposal? Presenter: Stéphane Van Gelder RAA: The Board's Dakar resolution requested an Issue Report for a PDP "as quickly as possible" to address "remaining items that may be suited for a PDP" relating to the RAA. Given that negotiations are ongoing on certain topics between ICANN staff and the Registrars Stakeholder Group, and that the Final Report on the RAA was just issued (on which the Council will be expected to act) is it the Board's expectation that the time frame and specific topics for a PDP will be dependent on the duration and outcome of the negotiations? What is the Board's view on the relationship between the scope of the topics to be negotiated directly and that for a PDP, especially as regards topics that may be considered policy matters? Presenter: Mary Wong GAC What advice can the GAC give the GNSO about the human rights impact assessment requirements of the PDP in light of the United Nations Human Rights Councils recent HRC Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet? For more background see reports about the Geneva Human Rights Council Session: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CnrqLUZ4hpEaCD_kxC0-FRTL_f8Hu_cKbxYT9fkt j5E/edit?pli=1# <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CnrqLUZ4hpEaCD_kxC0-FRTL_f8Hu_cKbxYT9fk tj5E/edit?pli=1> http://www.ccianet.org/index.asp?bid=89 <http://www.ccianet.org/index.asp?bid=89&BlogEntryID=224&FormID=300&catid=0> &BlogEntryID=224&FormID=300&catid=0 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-j-black/uns-itu-could-become-next_b_133 2768.html Presenter: Joy Liddicoat RAA: Update from registrars. Why does the GAC think pushing for Whois verification will resolve cybercrime, and will you push for the same level of verification for all TLDs worldwide, including ccTLDs? Another question (Wendy): How can the GNSO engage the GAC in discussion about the LEA recommendations, such as verification and regulations on privacy/proxy providers, so that the negotiations reflect realistic options from the viewpoint of the community? We need to have these discussions in parallel, rather than having an unacceptable agreement come back to Council and be rejected on Policy grounds. Presenter: Mason Cole General suggestion from Jonathan Robinson There are issues within each of these topics that we have grappled with and we would like to have a discussion with you on those issues. Possible questions from the Board: What will be in your view the medium-term impact of the new gTLD program on the structure of ICANN in general, and challenges it brings to the gNSO, its constituencies and policy development process. What are the potential issues and how to anticipate them?" this I s a question they would like to have all parts of the community starting to consider. Another question is: What is the view on the need for stronger protections against defensive registrations at the second level, and a shift to WHOIS data authentication at time of data submission? Resolution of conflict with NPOC. What is the Council's mid-term policy development calendar?
participants (7)
-
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" -
Jonathan Robinson -
Joy Liddicoat -
Neuman, Jeff -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Wendy Seltzer -
Zahid Jamil