Re: GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communique Template
Colleagues, attached is a draft review of the Dublin GAC communique. I would appreciate your input and discussion on a couple of the items, where our proposed response seems to me rather unclear. A proposed motion folllows. Thanks to Marika for her help on this task. Stephanie Perrin *Adoption of the GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board* Whereas, 1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting. 2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. 3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC. 4. The GNSO Council developed a template to facilitate this process, which was completed following the publication of the Dublin GAC Communiqué by a volunteer and shared with the GNSO Council for its review 5. The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communiqué and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board. 2. Following the communication to the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair informs the GAC Chair as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.
Hi Stephanie The RySG has sent a letter to Steve Crocker today responding to the GAC communique's advice on two characters. A copy of the letter is attached. I'm not sure this is relevant for the GNSO Council exercise, but felt it was worth sharing with the Council. Thanks Donna Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc. Policy and Industry Affairs Manager Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin@neustar.biz<mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz> ________________________________ 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 me immediately and delete the original message. Follow Neustar: [cid:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc> [cid:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> [cid:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Monday, 9 November 2015 3:46 PM To: gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org; Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-Systems.net>; David (dave@difference.com.au) (dave@difference.com.au) <dave@difference.com.au>; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Re: GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communique Template Colleagues, attached is a draft review of the Dublin GAC communique. I would appreciate your input and discussion on a couple of the items, where our proposed response seems to me rather unclear. A proposed motion folllows. Thanks to Marika for her help on this task. Stephanie Perrin Adoption of the GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board Whereas, 1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting. 2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. 3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC. 4. The GNSO Council developed a template to facilitate this process, which was completed following the publication of the Dublin GAC Communiqué by a volunteer and shared with the GNSO Council for its review 5. The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communiqué and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board. 2. Following the communication to the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair informs the GAC Chair as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.
Thanks very much Donna, perhaps if we agree in our next meeting on that approach, we can include it....I will prepare a revised draft. cheers Stephanie On 2015-11-10 13:34, Austin, Donna wrote:
Hi Stephanie
The RySG has sent a letter to Steve Crocker today responding to the GAC communique’s advice on two characters. A copy of the letter is attached.
I’m not sure this is relevant for the GNSO Council exercise, but felt it was worth sharing with the Council.
Thanks
Donna
*Donna Austin**:****Neustar, Inc.** *Policy and Industry Affairs Manager
*Cell:***+1.310.890.9655 *Email: *donna.austin@neustar.biz <mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 me immediately and delete the original message.
*Follow Neustar:*cid:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc>cid:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349>cid:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/neustar>
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephanie Perrin *Sent:* Monday, 9 November 2015 3:46 PM *To:* gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org; Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-Systems.net>; David (dave@difference.com.au) (dave@difference.com.au) <dave@difference.com.au>; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* [council] Re: GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communique Template
Colleagues, attached is a draft review of the Dublin GAC communique. I would appreciate your input and discussion on a couple of the items, where our proposed response seems to me rather unclear. A proposed motion folllows. Thanks to Marika for her help on this task. Stephanie Perrin
*Adoption of the GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board*
Whereas,
1.The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting.
2.The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.
3.The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.
4.The GNSO Council developed a template to facilitate this process, which was completed following the publication of the Dublin GAC Communiqué by a volunteer and shared with the GNSO Council for its review
5.The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.
Resolved,
1.The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communiqué and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
2.Following the communication to the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair informs the GAC Chair as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.
Dear Stephanie, Many thanks for your willingness to produce this first draft of Council's response. Paul McGrady and I will discuss further with our IPC colleagues to provide input from the constituency as a whole, but in the meantime, I'll try to contribute from a more general perspective. 1. gTLD Safeguards: Current Rounds - We should update the third column ('If yes, is it subject to existing....) to be most current, which is that the Preliminary Issue Report was published on 21 August and the public comment period on that Report closed on 30 October. Marika or Mary will be in the best position to advise as to timing of GNSO policy development next steps for this third and also the fourth column. Also under this point, the harmonized methodology for reporting (page 3), if we refer to the work on metrics, it would be helpful to point directly to Council's recent approval (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20151021-1) of the Recommendations set out in the Final Report of the DMPM WG. I wasn't a member of this WG but if any Councillors (or failing that, Jonathan Zuck, as he has led the WG and been providing Council with updates) can offer insight as to whether this issue of GAC Advice Board scorecard can be dealt with in the framework of what the DMPM WG recommends, that would also be helpful information for the Board to insert here. 2. Future gTLD Rounds - Is the text in the third column ('If yes, is it subject to existing....) intended to refer to the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures? If so, this should be updated, as it was published on 21 August and the public comment period closed on 30 October. In column 3 we should specifically identify the many ongoing GNSO policy development-related work, including: (I'm counting on others to help fill in the gaps if I miss any here, as there are many things ongoing relating to future round/s) - Competition, Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice (CCT) Metrics/Review (here is an excellent opportunity to make it known to the Board that the GNSO is very keen to have a sufficient number of representatives on this Review to ensure the full range of GNSO stakeholder perspectives are able to contribute). - RPM and TMCH Reviews - CWG Country and Territory Names (It would be helpful to highlight that this WG is referred to in the GAC communique as belonging to the ccNSO, but it is in fact a CWG chartered by both the ccNSO and GNSO. We could push the point that it is therefore important that the GAC liaise with both SOs on this CWG's work; in short, the GNSO must be involved in these interactions.) -Others I have forgotten? 3. Protection for IGOs - Phil Corwin is best placed to correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood from our Saturday update in Dublin that Professor Edward Swaine, George Washington University Faculty of Law, has been appointed to advise on sovereign immunity issues. The PDP will resume work once Professor Swaine’s advice is received. 4. CPE - I defer to others for input on this one, as I don't know of anything to add. 5. Use of 2-letter Country Codes and Country Names - Donna's input about RySG's work here raises a good point, which is that as we move forward with the concept of this document, we should put into place some sort of processes whereby the various SGs and Cs can provide input to the drafter of the document. 6. Visas - We might usefully note here (Marika and Glen are likely best to offer input) that the GNSO Council also suffers from this problem. We may have statistics or records as to how many Councillors have not been able to attend recent meetings due to visa issues. This type of hard data could be very useful to the Board. Best wishes, Heather ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 10:46 To: gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org; Marika Konings; 'Volker Greimann'; David (dave@difference.com.au) (dave@difference.com.au); council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Re: GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communique Template Colleagues, attached is a draft review of the Dublin GAC communique. I would appreciate your input and discussion on a couple of the items, where our proposed response seems to me rather unclear. A proposed motion folllows. Thanks to Marika for her help on this task. Stephanie Perrin Adoption of the GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board Whereas, 1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting. 2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. 3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC. 4. The GNSO Council developed a template to facilitate this process, which was completed following the publication of the Dublin GAC Communiqué by a volunteer and shared with the GNSO Council for its review 5. The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communiqué and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board. 2. Following the communication to the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair informs the GAC Chair as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.
Great update Heather. Thank you very much! Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________ email: crg@isoc-cr.org Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA
On Nov 11, 2015, at 10:32 PM, Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au> wrote:
Dear Stephanie,
Many thanks for your willingness to produce this first draft of Council's response. Paul McGrady and I will discuss further with our IPC colleagues to provide input from the constituency as a whole, but in the meantime, I'll try to contribute from a more general perspective.
1. gTLD Safeguards: Current Rounds - We should update the third column ('If yes, is it subject to existing....) to be most current, which is that the Preliminary Issue Report was published on 21 August and the public comment period on that Report closed on 30 October. Marika or Mary will be in the best position to advise as to timing of GNSO policy development next steps for this third and also the fourth column.
Also under this point, the harmonized methodology for reporting (page 3), if we refer to the work on metrics, it would be helpful to point directly to Council's recent approval (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20151021-1 <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20151021-1>) of the Recommendations set out in the Final Report of the DMPM WG. I wasn't a member of this WG but if any Councillors (or failing that, Jonathan Zuck, as he has led the WG and been providing Council with updates) can offer insight as to whether this issue of GAC Advice Board scorecard can be dealt with in the framework of what the DMPM WG recommends, that would also be helpful information for the Board to insert here.
2. Future gTLD Rounds - Is the text in the third column ('If yes, is it subject to existing....) intended to refer to the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures? If so, this should be updated, as it was published on 21 August and the public comment period closed on 30 October. In column 3 we should specifically identify the many ongoing GNSO policy development-related work, including: (I'm counting on others to help fill in the gaps if I miss any here, as there are many things ongoing relating to future round/s) - Competition, Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice (CCT) Metrics/Review (here is an excellent opportunity to make it known to the Board that the GNSO is very keen to have a sufficient number of representatives on this Review to ensure the full range of GNSO stakeholder perspectives are able to contribute). - RPM and TMCH Reviews - CWG Country and Territory Names (It would be helpful to highlight that this WG is referred to in the GAC communique as belonging to the ccNSO, but it is in fact a CWG chartered by both the ccNSO and GNSO. We could push the point that it is therefore important that the GAC liaise with both SOs on this CWG's work; in short, the GNSO must be involved in these interactions.) -Others I have forgotten?
3. Protection for IGOs - Phil Corwin is best placed to correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood from our Saturday update in Dublin that Professor Edward Swaine, George Washington University Faculty of Law, has been appointed to advise on sovereign immunity issues. The PDP will resume work once Professor Swaine’s advice is received.
4. CPE - I defer to others for input on this one, as I don't know of anything to add.
5. Use of 2-letter Country Codes and Country Names - Donna's input about RySG's work here raises a good point, which is that as we move forward with the concept of this document, we should put into place some sort of processes whereby the various SGs and Cs can provide input to the drafter of the document.
6. Visas - We might usefully note here (Marika and Glen are likely best to offer input) that the GNSO Council also suffers from this problem. We may have statistics or records as to how many Councillors have not been able to attend recent meetings due to visa issues. This type of hard data could be very useful to the Board.
Best wishes,
Heather
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 10:46 To: gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org; Marika Konings; 'Volker Greimann'; David (dave@difference.com.au) (dave@difference.com.au); council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Re: GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communique Template
Colleagues, attached is a draft review of the Dublin GAC communique. I would appreciate your input and discussion on a couple of the items, where our proposed response seems to me rather unclear. A proposed motion folllows. Thanks to Marika for her help on this task. Stephanie Perrin
Adoption of the GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board Whereas, The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC. The GNSO Council developed a template to facilitate this process, which was completed following the publication of the Dublin GAC Communiqué by a volunteer and shared with the GNSO Council for its review The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO. Resolved, The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communiqué and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board. Following the communication to the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair informs the GAC Chair as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.
Thanks so much for this Heather, very useful. I will try to get this into an amended report, which I will circulate prior to our next meeting....not sure what the protocol is for making amendments to the one that made it in by the deadline, and my apologies for not circulating the draft in time to get all your valuable input. I was going to helpfully suggest how the GAC folks might ameliorate their visa problem (it is , after all, up to them to decide whether their meeting is an official one or not) but figured we had better stick to our remit.:-) Stephanie On 15-11-11 11:32 PM, Heather Forrest wrote:
Dear Stephanie,
Many thanks for your willingness to produce this first draft of Council's response. Paul McGrady and I will discuss further with our IPC colleagues to provide input from the constituency as a whole, but in the meantime, I'll try to contribute from a more general perspective.
1. gTLD Safeguards: Current Rounds - We should update the third column ('If yes, is it subject to existing....) to be most current, which is that the Preliminary Issue Report was published on 21 August and the public comment period on that Report closed on 30 October. Marika or Mary will be in the best position to advise as to timing of GNSO policy development next steps for this third and also the fourth column.
Also under this point, the harmonized methodology for reporting (page 3), if we refer to the work on metrics, it would be helpful to point directly to Council's recent approval (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20151021-1) of the Recommendations set out in the Final Report of the DMPM WG. I wasn't a member of this WG but if any Councillors (or failing that, Jonathan Zuck, as he has led the WG and been providing Council with updates) can offer insight as to whether this issue of GAC Advice Board scorecard can be dealt with in the framework of what the DMPM WG recommends, that would also be helpful information for the Board to insert here.
2. Future gTLD Rounds - Is the text in the third column ('If yes, is it subject to existing....) intended to refer to the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures? If so, this should be updated, as it was published on 21 August and the public comment period closed on 30 October. In column 3 we should specifically identify the many ongoing GNSO policy development-related work, including: (I'm counting on others to help fill in the gaps if I miss any here, as there are many things ongoing relating to future round/s)
- Competition, Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice (CCT) Metrics/Review (here is an excellent opportunity to make it known to the Board that the GNSO is very keen to have a sufficient number of representatives on this Review to ensure the full range of GNSO stakeholder perspectives are able to contribute).
- RPM and TMCH Reviews
- CWG Country and Territory Names (It would be helpful to highlight that this WG is referred to in the GAC communique as belonging to the ccNSO, but it is in fact a CWG chartered by both the ccNSO and GNSO. We could push the point that it is therefore important that the GAC liaise with both SOs on this CWG's work; in short, the GNSO must be involved in these interactions.)
-Others I have forgotten?
3. Protection for IGOs - Phil Corwin is best placed to correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood from our Saturday update in Dublin that Professor Edward Swaine, George Washington University Faculty of Law, has been appointed to advise on sovereign immunity issues. The PDP will resume work once Professor Swaine’s advice is received.
4. CPE - I defer to others for input on this one, as I don't know of anything to add.
5. Use of 2-letter Country Codes and Country Names - Donna's input about RySG's work here raises a good point, which is that as we move forward with the concept of this document, we should put into place some sort of processes whereby the various SGs and Cs can provide input to the drafter of the document.
6. Visas - We might usefully note here (Marika and Glen are likely best to offer input) that the GNSO Council also suffers from this problem. We may have statistics or records as to how many Councillors have not been able to attend recent meetings due to visa issues. This type of hard data could be very useful to the Board.
Best wishes,
Heather
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 10, 2015 10:46 *To:* gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org; Marika Konings; 'Volker Greimann'; David (dave@difference.com.au) (dave@difference.com.au); council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* [council] Re: GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communique Template Colleagues, attached is a draft review of the Dublin GAC communique. I would appreciate your input and discussion on a couple of the items, where our proposed response seems to me rather unclear. A proposed motion folllows. Thanks to Marika for her help on this task. Stephanie Perrin
*Adoption of the GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board*
Whereas,
1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting. 2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. 3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC. 4. The GNSO Council developed a template to facilitate this process, which was completed following the publication of the Dublin GAC Communiqué by a volunteer and shared with the GNSO Council for its review 5. The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.
Resolved,
1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communiqué and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board. 2. Following the communication to the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair informs the GAC Chair as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.
All I'm not so sure we want to wade too far in on the visa issue and largely agree with Stephanie that we should stick to our remit. I think we should also recognise that ICANN meetings have state-of-the-art remote participation capabilities and while we can't do anything to get over the challenges of timezones, ICANN does make best-efforts to ensure participation whether it be in person or remotely. I think Markus Kummer responded to a question about visa availability during the public forum and noted that obtaining visas is not just an ICANN issue but is an issue for most UN meetings and is largely unsolvable. The visa issue was also the source of a lot of discussion in the Meeting Strategy Working Group and formed part of a number of the recommendations IX. RECOMMENDATIONS ON MEETING SUPPORT AND ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES: · ICANN meeting planning team should continue to focus on ease of securing visas as a criterion in evaluating meeting locations. The MSWG recognizes the problem related to visas for attendees and recommends existing procedures be improved to enhance collaboration with the relevant Government and local hosts while maintaining the open enrollment and registration policies of the meetings. · Steps should also be taken to keep track of recurring attendees to support easing of future visa attainment for attendees. · The MSWG does not recommend requiring ICANN secure a local host for ICANN meetings, but does recommend that ICANN continue to encourage a multi-stakeholder local host structure. This support does not have to be financial in nature but with support for events, contacts with local government and media contacts, and support in the effort to secure visa letters is recognized as a benefit and should be continued. XII. ADDITIONAL ELEMENT REGARDING THE VISA ISSUE Visa delivery to some ICANN community members has been an issue in certain countries hosting the ICANN meeting. It made some elected members of SO/AC leadership miss important meetings where they had crucial roles to play. ICANN meeting planning team should continue to focus on ease of securing visas as criteria in evaluating meeting locations. The aim is not to waive or change the visa procedure of the host country; it is more making the necessary arrangements so that the so-called procedure becomes accessible and doable for all community members in full respect of the host country laws and rules. There will always be someone who will not be able to get the visa because he/she has a personal issues; the goal is to make the number of such persons as low as possible, and be sure that the restriction doesn't concern a region, country, race or religion. The full report can be found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/recommendations-25feb14-en.pdf Thanks Donna Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc. Policy and Industry Affairs Manager Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin@neustar.biz<mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz> ________________________________ 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 me immediately and delete the original message. Follow Neustar: [cid:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc> [cid:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> [cid:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, 12 November 2015 9:21 AM To: Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>; gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org; Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-Systems.net>; David (dave@difference.com.au) (dave@difference.com.au) <dave@difference.com.au>; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Re: GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communique Template Thanks so much for this Heather, very useful. I will try to get this into an amended report, which I will circulate prior to our next meeting....not sure what the protocol is for making amendments to the one that made it in by the deadline, and my apologies for not circulating the draft in time to get all your valuable input. I was going to helpfully suggest how the GAC folks might ameliorate their visa problem (it is , after all, up to them to decide whether their meeting is an official one or not) but figured we had better stick to our remit. :-) Stephanie On 15-11-11 11:32 PM, Heather Forrest wrote: Dear Stephanie, Many thanks for your willingness to produce this first draft of Council's response. Paul McGrady and I will discuss further with our IPC colleagues to provide input from the constituency as a whole, but in the meantime, I'll try to contribute from a more general perspective. 1. gTLD Safeguards: Current Rounds - We should update the third column ('If yes, is it subject to existing....) to be most current, which is that the Preliminary Issue Report was published on 21 August and the public comment period on that Report closed on 30 October. Marika or Mary will be in the best position to advise as to timing of GNSO policy development next steps for this third and also the fourth column. Also under this point, the harmonized methodology for reporting (page 3), if we refer to the work on metrics, it would be helpful to point directly to Council's recent approval (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20151021-1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_resolutions-2320151021-2D1&d=CwMD-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=ft3m190yqI7BGln9mZqDuH4_DqE-bzlALYFIX2SCwak&s=rx2Pd-yfIFJhGvp-YyUstS223Au_nrfsvQxawmHwEYk&e=>) of the Recommendations set out in the Final Report of the DMPM WG. I wasn't a member of this WG but if any Councillors (or failing that, Jonathan Zuck, as he has led the WG and been providing Council with updates) can offer insight as to whether this issue of GAC Advice Board scorecard can be dealt with in the framework of what the DMPM WG recommends, that would also be helpful information for the Board to insert here. 2. Future gTLD Rounds - Is the text in the third column ('If yes, is it subject to existing....) intended to refer to the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures? If so, this should be updated, as it was published on 21 August and the public comment period closed on 30 October. In column 3 we should specifically identify the many ongoing GNSO policy development-related work, including: (I'm counting on others to help fill in the gaps if I miss any here, as there are many things ongoing relating to future round/s) - Competition, Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice (CCT) Metrics/Review (here is an excellent opportunity to make it known to the Board that the GNSO is very keen to have a sufficient number of representatives on this Review to ensure the full range of GNSO stakeholder perspectives are able to contribute). - RPM and TMCH Reviews - CWG Country and Territory Names (It would be helpful to highlight that this WG is referred to in the GAC communique as belonging to the ccNSO, but it is in fact a CWG chartered by both the ccNSO and GNSO. We could push the point that it is therefore important that the GAC liaise with both SOs on this CWG's work; in short, the GNSO must be involved in these interactions.) -Others I have forgotten? 3. Protection for IGOs - Phil Corwin is best placed to correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood from our Saturday update in Dublin that Professor Edward Swaine, George Washington University Faculty of Law, has been appointed to advise on sovereign immunity issues. The PDP will resume work once Professor Swaine's advice is received. 4. CPE - I defer to others for input on this one, as I don't know of anything to add. 5. Use of 2-letter Country Codes and Country Names - Donna's input about RySG's work here raises a good point, which is that as we move forward with the concept of this document, we should put into place some sort of processes whereby the various SGs and Cs can provide input to the drafter of the document. 6. Visas - We might usefully note here (Marika and Glen are likely best to offer input) that the GNSO Council also suffers from this problem. We may have statistics or records as to how many Councillors have not been able to attend recent meetings due to visa issues. This type of hard data could be very useful to the Board. Best wishes, Heather ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> <owner-council@gnso.icann.org><mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 10:46 To: gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>; Marika Konings; 'Volker Greimann'; David (dave@difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>) (dave@difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>); council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communique Template Colleagues, attached is a draft review of the Dublin GAC communique. I would appreciate your input and discussion on a couple of the items, where our proposed response seems to me rather unclear. A proposed motion folllows. Thanks to Marika for her help on this task. Stephanie Perrin Adoption of the GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board Whereas, 1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting. 2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. 3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC. 4. The GNSO Council developed a template to facilitate this process, which was completed following the publication of the Dublin GAC Communiqué by a volunteer and shared with the GNSO Council for its review 5. The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communiqué and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board. 2. Following the communication to the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair informs the GAC Chair as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.
Hi Stephanie, Is there another version of the GNSO review of the Dublin GAC Communique that incorporates Heathers and Donna’s input? From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>> Date: Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 12:11 PM To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>>, Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au<mailto:Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>>, "gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-Systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net>>, "David (dave@difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>) (dave@difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>)" <dave@difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>>, "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] Re: GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communique Template All I’m not so sure we want to wade too far in on the visa issue and largely agree with Stephanie that we should stick to our remit. I think we should also recognise that ICANN meetings have state-of-the-art remote participation capabilities and while we can’t do anything to get over the challenges of timezones, ICANN does make best-efforts to ensure participation whether it be in person or remotely. I think Markus Kummer responded to a question about visa availability during the public forum and noted that obtaining visas is not just an ICANN issue but is an issue for most UN meetings and is largely unsolvable. The visa issue was also the source of a lot of discussion in the Meeting Strategy Working Group and formed part of a number of the recommendations IX. RECOMMENDATIONS ON MEETING SUPPORT AND ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES: · ICANN meeting planning team should continue to focus on ease of securing visas as a criterion in evaluating meeting locations. The MSWG recognizes the problem related to visas for attendees and recommends existing procedures be improved to enhance collaboration with the relevant Government and local hosts while maintaining the open enrollment and registration policies of the meetings. · Steps should also be taken to keep track of recurring attendees to support easing of future visa attainment for attendees. · The MSWG does not recommend requiring ICANN secure a local host for ICANN meetings, but does recommend that ICANN continue to encourage a multi-stakeholder local host structure. This support does not have to be financial in nature but with support for events, contacts with local government and media contacts, and support in the effort to secure visa letters is recognized as a benefit and should be continued. XII. ADDITIONAL ELEMENT REGARDING THE VISA ISSUE Visa delivery to some ICANN community members has been an issue in certain countries hosting the ICANN meeting. It made some elected members of SO/AC leadership miss important meetings where they had crucial roles to play. ICANN meeting planning team should continue to focus on ease of securing visas as criteria in evaluating meeting locations. The aim is not to waive or change the visa procedure of the host country; it is more making the necessary arrangements so that the so-called procedure becomes accessible and doable for all community members in full respect of the host country laws and rules. There will always be someone who will not be able to get the visa because he/she has a personal issues; the goal is to make the number of such persons as low as possible, and be sure that the restriction doesn’t concern a region, country, race or religion. The full report can be found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/recommendations-25feb14-en.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_recommendations-2D25feb14-2Den.pdf&d=CwMFAw&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=eUSYPingqIbcADagd8tXQRz1UapdvyWstv6GSS0dNec&s=8J1ubsEd5Yf4Fg1ryosKDmQoXhJttL9LNqTjd8-_2n4&e=> Thanks Donna Donna Austin:Neustar, Inc. Policy and Industry Affairs Manager Cell:+1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin@neustar.biz<mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz> ________________________________ 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 me immediately and delete the original message. Follow Neustar: [cid:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc> [cid:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] LinkedIn<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_company...> [cid:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Twitter<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_neustar&...> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, 12 November 2015 9:21 AM To: Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au<mailto:Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>>; gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>; Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-Systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net>>; David (dave@difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>) (dave@difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>) <dave@difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>>; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Re: GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communique Template Thanks so much for this Heather, very useful. I will try to get this into an amended report, which I will circulate prior to our next meeting....not sure what the protocol is for making amendments to the one that made it in by the deadline, and my apologies for not circulating the draft in time to get all your valuable input. I was going to helpfully suggest how the GAC folks might ameliorate their visa problem (it is , after all, up to them to decide whether their meeting is an official one or not) but figured we had better stick to our remit. :-) Stephanie On 15-11-11 11:32 PM, Heather Forrest wrote: Dear Stephanie, Many thanks for your willingness to produce this first draft of Council's response. Paul McGrady and I will discuss further with our IPC colleagues to provide input from the constituency as a whole, but in the meantime, I'll try to contribute from a more general perspective. 1. gTLD Safeguards: Current Rounds - We should update the third column ('If yes, is it subject to existing....) to be most current, which is that the Preliminary Issue Report was published on 21 August and the public comment period on that Report closed on 30 October. Marika or Mary will be in the best position to advise as to timing of GNSO policy development next steps for this third and also the fourth column. Also under this point, the harmonized methodology for reporting (page 3), if we refer to the work on metrics, it would be helpful to point directly to Council's recent approval (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20151021-1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_resolutions-2320151021-2D1&d=CwMD-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=ft3m190yqI7BGln9mZqDuH4_DqE-bzlALYFIX2SCwak&s=rx2Pd-yfIFJhGvp-YyUstS223Au_nrfsvQxawmHwEYk&e=>) of the Recommendations set out in the Final Report of the DMPM WG. I wasn't a member of this WG but if any Councillors (or failing that, Jonathan Zuck, as he has led the WG and been providing Council with updates) can offer insight as to whether this issue of GAC Advice Board scorecard can be dealt with in the framework of what the DMPM WG recommends, that would also be helpful information for the Board to insert here. 2. Future gTLD Rounds - Is the text in the third column ('If yes, is it subject to existing....) intended to refer to the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures? If so, this should be updated, as it was published on 21 August and the public comment period closed on 30 October. In column 3 we should specifically identify the many ongoing GNSO policy development-related work, including: (I'm counting on others to help fill in the gaps if I miss any here, as there are many things ongoing relating to future round/s) - Competition, Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice (CCT) Metrics/Review (here is an excellent opportunity to make it known to the Board that the GNSO is very keen to have a sufficient number of representatives on this Review to ensure the full range of GNSO stakeholder perspectives are able to contribute). - RPM and TMCH Reviews - CWG Country and Territory Names (It would be helpful to highlight that this WG is referred to in the GAC communique as belonging to the ccNSO, but it is in fact a CWG chartered by both the ccNSO and GNSO. We could push the point that it is therefore important that the GAC liaise with both SOs on this CWG's work; in short, the GNSO must be involved in these interactions.) -Others I have forgotten? 3. Protection for IGOs - Phil Corwin is best placed to correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood from our Saturday update in Dublin that Professor Edward Swaine, George Washington University Faculty of Law, has been appointed to advise on sovereign immunity issues. The PDP will resume work once Professor Swaine’s advice is received. 4. CPE - I defer to others for input on this one, as I don't know of anything to add. 5. Use of 2-letter Country Codes and Country Names - Donna's input about RySG's work here raises a good point, which is that as we move forward with the concept of this document, we should put into place some sort of processes whereby the various SGs and Cs can provide input to the drafter of the document. 6. Visas - We might usefully note here (Marika and Glen are likely best to offer input) that the GNSO Council also suffers from this problem. We may have statistics or records as to how many Councillors have not been able to attend recent meetings due to visa issues. This type of hard data could be very useful to the Board. Best wishes, Heather ________________________________ From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> <owner-council@gnso.icann.org><mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 10:46 To: gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>; Marika Konings; 'Volker Greimann'; David (dave@difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>) (dave@difference.com.au<mailto:dave@difference.com.au>); council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communique Template Colleagues, attached is a draft review of the Dublin GAC communique. I would appreciate your input and discussion on a couple of the items, where our proposed response seems to me rather unclear. A proposed motion folllows. Thanks to Marika for her help on this task. Stephanie Perrin Adoption of the GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board Whereas, 1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting. 2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. 3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC. 4. The GNSO Council developed a template to facilitate this process, which was completed following the publication of the Dublin GAC Communiqué by a volunteer and shared with the GNSO Council for its review 5. The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communiqué and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board. 2. Following the communication to the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair informs the GAC Chair as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.
participants (5)
-
Austin, Donna -
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez -
Heather Forrest -
Stephanie Perrin -
Susan Kawaguchi