Thanks Alan, Perhaps I did not make my meaning very clear. My comments were made with ICANN's Bottom-Up Multi-Stakeholder Policy Development Process in mind. I was inferring that, if certain parties do not like certain results which come out of that process, sending letters to the ICANN CEO and the Board in order to get the end result they seek is probably an attempt at circumventing it. Please bear in mind that I make this as a general comment about the ICANN BU MS PDP model and our duty as members of the ICANN community to defend that model (because if we didn't believe in that model, then why would we be here in the first place?). In no way were my comments meant to be specifically about this issue of the UN letter. They were meant to stimulate thought at Council level about possible next steps and actions on this issue. I hope that helps. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT Le 2 août 2012 à 15:19, Alan Greenberg a écrit :

Stephane,

Just a brief comment, NOT specifically related to the IGO issue (where I am not sure if it applies).

My understanding is that setting GNSO policy is not synonymous with the GNSO's PDP process. The PDP process clearly required if we are setting formal Consensus Policy which will alter contracted party contracts or if we want to compel the Board to implement a GNSO decision (short of 2/3 of the board vetoing). It is far less clear to me that policy outside of those cases needs the formal PDP process, but rather just a majority vote of Council.

I suspect this may not be a universally held view, in which case it would be good to get some clarity from ICANN staff.

Alan

At 02/08/2012 06:29 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

...

Councillors,

Please find attached a letter sent by the UN to the GAC Chair and myself on the protection of IGO names in the DNS, as part of the new gTLD programme.

As this is the latest in a long line of correspondence sent to ICANN on the matter, I feel increasingly strongly that the GNSO Council should be providing clearer responses to the question of the protection of IGO names that it has done so far. I am not advocating any specific direction for that response, merely suggesting that any response might be desirable at this time, rather than no response.

As we all know, substantial work has been undertaken on the question of the IOC and RC names, culminating in a recommendation being sent to the Board. It is therefore clear that, from a GNSO point of view, the issue has been handled through our normal processes as part of the bottom-up PDP that is the mainstay of ICANN.

As has always been my focus, I am keen to avoid any potential attempts at circumventing the GNSO's PDP processes. As I am not aware of any formal response the GNSO has provided to the IGOs, I wonder if one would be appropriate and would like to have the Council's opinion on this. I would also appreciate getting Jeff's opinion, as Chair of the IOC/RC DT.

Thanks,

Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT

Début du message réexpédié :

...

De : Alina Syunkova <alina.syunkova@icann.org > Objet : Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration Date : 2 août 2012 01:58:35 HAEC À : Heather Dryden <heather.dryden@ic.gc.ca >, " stephane.vangelder@indom.com" < stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Cc : Diane Schroeder < diane.schroeder@icann.org>

Dear Heather and Stephane,

Attached, please find the letter (3 pages) from UN Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, Patricia O'Brien, dated 26 July 2012, which arrived at the ICANN office in Los Angeles today. It is addressed to both of you.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you, -- Alina Syunkova

Board Support Coordinator ICANN Mob.: +1 (310) 913-8972 Skype: alina.syunkova.icann 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536