Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law
Councilors – Having now considered --and withdrawn-- two separate motions on this topic, it is clear that we need to regroup, reassess, and consider our path(s) forward. Per the discussion on our 30 SEP call, I would like to convene a group of interested Councilors to kick off discussions and present options. For context, please see the attached Overview document prepared by Staff. This summary is intended to provide backgrounds, and kick start ideas for resolution, but by no means is it meant to serve as an exhaustive list. I’m hopeful this group can work together to reconcile the diverse opinions on this issue, and come back to Council one or more motions that have sufficient support to pass. Thank you, J.
Thanks for this. I see no mention of my motion, which basically confirmed my position (and that of NCSG, whose submission missed the deadline) that the policy was fundamentally flawed. I recognize noone wants another PDP but Council could also take the position that the policy needs to be revisited, and request a charter. Seems logical if it has never been used in a decade. Anyway, I would submit that such a document should mention the fact that there were minority views in the IAG that the policy itself has flaws which demand a fix. Stephanie Perrin On 2016-10-07 12:19, James M. Bladel wrote:
Councilors –
Having now considered --and withdrawn-- two separate motions on this topic, it is clear that we need to regroup, reassess, and consider our path(s) forward.
Per the discussion on our 30 SEP call, I would like to convene a group of interested Councilors to kick off discussions and present options. For context, please see the attached Overview document prepared by Staff. This summary is intended to provide backgrounds, and kick start ideas for resolution, but by no means is it meant to serve as an exhaustive list.
I’m hopeful this group can work together to reconcile the diverse opinions on this issue, and come back to Council one or more motions that have sufficient support to pass.
Thank you,
J.
Thanks, Stephanie. Can I take this note as your volunteering for this group effort? ☺ J. From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Date: Friday, October 7, 2016 at 11:34 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks for this. I see no mention of my motion, which basically confirmed my position (and that of NCSG, whose submission missed the deadline) that the policy was fundamentally flawed. I recognize noone wants another PDP but Council could also take the position that the policy needs to be revisited, and request a charter. Seems logical if it has never been used in a decade. Anyway, I would submit that such a document should mention the fact that there were minority views in the IAG that the policy itself has flaws which demand a fix. Stephanie Perrin On 2016-10-07 12:19, James M. Bladel wrote: Councilors – Having now considered --and withdrawn-- two separate motions on this topic, it is clear that we need to regroup, reassess, and consider our path(s) forward. Per the discussion on our 30 SEP call, I would like to convene a group of interested Councilors to kick off discussions and present options. For context, please see the attached Overview document prepared by Staff. This summary is intended to provide backgrounds, and kick start ideas for resolution, but by no means is it meant to serve as an exhaustive list. I’m hopeful this group can work together to reconcile the diverse opinions on this issue, and come back to Council one or more motions that have sufficient support to pass. Thank you, J.
Stephanie, please see scenario and consequences #2: The Council should specify why it is of the view that the proposed modification is not consistent. Furthermore the Council could consider whether more work is required on the proposed modification to ensure that it is consistent with the intent of the policy recommendations (for example by reconstituting the IAG or forming a new group) or whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review. ‘Whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review’ would imply a PDP. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Date: Friday 7 October 2016 at 10:34 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks for this. I see no mention of my motion, which basically confirmed my position (and that of NCSG, whose submission missed the deadline) that the policy was fundamentally flawed. I recognize noone wants another PDP but Council could also take the position that the policy needs to be revisited, and request a charter. Seems logical if it has never been used in a decade. Anyway, I would submit that such a document should mention the fact that there were minority views in the IAG that the policy itself has flaws which demand a fix. Stephanie Perrin On 2016-10-07 12:19, James M. Bladel wrote: Councilors – Having now considered --and withdrawn-- two separate motions on this topic, it is clear that we need to regroup, reassess, and consider our path(s) forward. Per the discussion on our 30 SEP call, I would like to convene a group of interested Councilors to kick off discussions and present options. For context, please see the attached Overview document prepared by Staff. This summary is intended to provide backgrounds, and kick start ideas for resolution, but by no means is it meant to serve as an exhaustive list. I’m hopeful this group can work together to reconcile the diverse opinions on this issue, and come back to Council one or more motions that have sufficient support to pass. Thank you, J.
Thanks Marika, you are absolutely correct, I was just looking for an explicit option spelled out there. And Yes James, happy to volunteer, wild horses couldn't keep me away.... cheers Stephanie On 2016-10-07 12:48, Marika Konings wrote:
Stephanie, please see scenario and consequences #2:
//
/The Council should specify why it is of the view that the proposed modification is not consistent. Furthermore the Council could consider whether//more work is required on the proposed modification to ensure that it is consistent with the intent of the policy recommendations (for example by reconstituting the IAG or forming a new group) or whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review./
//
‘Whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review’ would imply a PDP.
Best regards,
Marika
*Marika Konings*
Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>
//
/Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO/
/Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>./
*From: *<owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> *Date: *Friday 7 October 2016 at 10:34 *To: *"James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law
Thanks for this. I see no mention of my motion, which basically confirmed my position (and that of NCSG, whose submission missed the deadline) that the policy was fundamentally flawed. I recognize noone wants another PDP but Council could also take the position that the policy needs to be revisited, and request a charter. Seems logical if it has never been used in a decade. Anyway, I would submit that such a document should mention the fact that there were minority views in the IAG that the policy itself has flaws which demand a fix.
Stephanie Perrin
On 2016-10-07 12:19, James M. Bladel wrote:
Councilors –
Having now considered --and withdrawn-- two separate motions on this topic, it is clear that we need to regroup, reassess, and consider our path(s) forward.
Per the discussion on our 30 SEP call, I would like to convene a group of interested Councilors to kick off discussions and present options. For context, please see the attached Overview document prepared by Staff. This summary is intended to provide backgrounds, and kick start ideas for resolution, but by no means is it meant to serve as an exhaustive list.
I’m hopeful this group can work together to reconcile the diverse opinions on this issue, and come back to Council one or more motions that have sufficient support to pass.
Thank you,
J.
I’m also happy to volunteer as well, but if wild horses do happen to pass on by I would gladly hitch a ride ☺ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 9:57 AM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>; James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks Marika, you are absolutely correct, I was just looking for an explicit option spelled out there. And Yes James, happy to volunteer, wild horses couldn't keep me away.... cheers Stephanie On 2016-10-07 12:48, Marika Konings wrote: Stephanie, please see scenario and consequences #2: The Council should specify why it is of the view that the proposed modification is not consistent. Furthermore the Council could consider whether more work is required on the proposed modification to ensure that it is consistent with the intent of the policy recommendations (for example by reconstituting the IAG or forming a new group) or whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review. ‘Whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review’ would imply a PDP. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DQMDaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=etRHdV31sWz6g0D4LC_t94p2DoS-1bONFwGgLzEYxzs&s=becHRKoRJe0XvBKXq-57nLPQJTwxi1tDQ0a2etS3Sbk&e=> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DQMDaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=etRHdV31sWz6g0D4LC_t94p2DoS-1bONFwGgLzEYxzs&s=YiRvJu2UnVRBy9D6xufz3_QqDvmcsn9odkHn1PTuU7Y&e=>. From: <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> Date: Friday 7 October 2016 at 10:34 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks for this. I see no mention of my motion, which basically confirmed my position (and that of NCSG, whose submission missed the deadline) that the policy was fundamentally flawed. I recognize noone wants another PDP but Council could also take the position that the policy needs to be revisited, and request a charter. Seems logical if it has never been used in a decade. Anyway, I would submit that such a document should mention the fact that there were minority views in the IAG that the policy itself has flaws which demand a fix. Stephanie Perrin On 2016-10-07 12:19, James M. Bladel wrote: Councilors – Having now considered --and withdrawn-- two separate motions on this topic, it is clear that we need to regroup, reassess, and consider our path(s) forward. Per the discussion on our 30 SEP call, I would like to convene a group of interested Councilors to kick off discussions and present options. For context, please see the attached Overview document prepared by Staff. This summary is intended to provide backgrounds, and kick start ideas for resolution, but by no means is it meant to serve as an exhaustive list. I’m hopeful this group can work together to reconcile the diverse opinions on this issue, and come back to Council one or more motions that have sufficient support to pass. Thank you, J.
Thanks, Stephanie. Council Colleagues: So far, the folks volunteering for a small group are Donna, Stephanie and myself. Perhaps we could encourage a few more folks to join? Especially those from the IPC/BC/ISPC? Once our list is final, we can try to convene a prep call before ICANN. Thanks— J. From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Date: Friday, October 7, 2016 at 11:57 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks Marika, you are absolutely correct, I was just looking for an explicit option spelled out there. And Yes James, happy to volunteer, wild horses couldn't keep me away.... cheers Stephanie On 2016-10-07 12:48, Marika Konings wrote: Stephanie, please see scenario and consequences #2: The Council should specify why it is of the view that the proposed modification is not consistent. Furthermore the Council could consider whether more work is required on the proposed modification to ensure that it is consistent with the intent of the policy recommendations (for example by reconstituting the IAG or forming a new group) or whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review. ‘Whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review’ would imply a PDP. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>. From: <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> Date: Friday 7 October 2016 at 10:34 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks for this. I see no mention of my motion, which basically confirmed my position (and that of NCSG, whose submission missed the deadline) that the policy was fundamentally flawed. I recognize noone wants another PDP but Council could also take the position that the policy needs to be revisited, and request a charter. Seems logical if it has never been used in a decade. Anyway, I would submit that such a document should mention the fact that there were minority views in the IAG that the policy itself has flaws which demand a fix. Stephanie Perrin On 2016-10-07 12:19, James M. Bladel wrote: Councilors – Having now considered --and withdrawn-- two separate motions on this topic, it is clear that we need to regroup, reassess, and consider our path(s) forward. Per the discussion on our 30 SEP call, I would like to convene a group of interested Councilors to kick off discussions and present options. For context, please see the attached Overview document prepared by Staff. This summary is intended to provide backgrounds, and kick start ideas for resolution, but by no means is it meant to serve as an exhaustive list. I’m hopeful this group can work together to reconcile the diverse opinions on this issue, and come back to Council one or more motions that have sufficient support to pass. Thank you, J.
I can participate in this small group. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 10:41 AM To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks, Stephanie. Council Colleagues: So far, the folks volunteering for a small group are Donna, Stephanie and myself. Perhaps we could encourage a few more folks to join? Especially those from the IPC/BC/ISPC? Once our list is final, we can try to convene a prep call before ICANN. Thanks— J. From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Date: Friday, October 7, 2016 at 11:57 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks Marika, you are absolutely correct, I was just looking for an explicit option spelled out there. And Yes James, happy to volunteer, wild horses couldn't keep me away.... cheers Stephanie On 2016-10-07 12:48, Marika Konings wrote: Stephanie, please see scenario and consequences #2: The Council should specify why it is of the view that the proposed modification is not consistent. Furthermore the Council could consider whether more work is required on the proposed modification to ensure that it is consistent with the intent of the policy recommendations (for example by reconstituting the IAG or forming a new group) or whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review. ‘Whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review’ would imply a PDP. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DQMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=Sgz_T3rUl3_-zJt0ia6bsFJ_QD04EGmlWXIylJEH6wA&s=c8cYkk9SVAP9WAbtip1bl29HTeHAH7gPgOtbzygpQ2o&e=> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DQMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=Sgz_T3rUl3_-zJt0ia6bsFJ_QD04EGmlWXIylJEH6wA&s=DRNWIw0SEHW5rzpIJV4GAoq76nlGl3dRXzIoDuHTxDY&e=>. From: <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> Date: Friday 7 October 2016 at 10:34 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks for this. I see no mention of my motion, which basically confirmed my position (and that of NCSG, whose submission missed the deadline) that the policy was fundamentally flawed. I recognize noone wants another PDP but Council could also take the position that the policy needs to be revisited, and request a charter. Seems logical if it has never been used in a decade. Anyway, I would submit that such a document should mention the fact that there were minority views in the IAG that the policy itself has flaws which demand a fix. Stephanie Perrin On 2016-10-07 12:19, James M. Bladel wrote: Councilors – Having now considered --and withdrawn-- two separate motions on this topic, it is clear that we need to regroup, reassess, and consider our path(s) forward. Per the discussion on our 30 SEP call, I would like to convene a group of interested Councilors to kick off discussions and present options. For context, please see the attached Overview document prepared by Staff. This summary is intended to provide backgrounds, and kick start ideas for resolution, but by no means is it meant to serve as an exhaustive list. I’m hopeful this group can work together to reconcile the diverse opinions on this issue, and come back to Council one or more motions that have sufficient support to pass. Thank you, J.
Thanks James. Under normal conditions, I would be happy to volunteer. However, your email mentions a call before the next ICANN meeting to kick off the work of the group. Given that this has been languishing for some time, could we postpone the kickoff under after Hyderabad? There is just so very much to do to get ready to go, attend a 10 day meeting, and then return & recover that adding on something else, especially something which appears to be non-urgent, seems impractical. Any chance we could do a kick off the 3rd week in November? If so, I’m happy to join in the fun. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady, Jr. policy@paulmcgrady.com From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:16 PM To: James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law I can participate in this small group. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> > on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> > Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 10:41 AM To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> > Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks, Stephanie. Council Colleagues: So far, the folks volunteering for a small group are Donna, Stephanie and myself. Perhaps we could encourage a few more folks to join? Especially those from the IPC/BC/ISPC? Once our list is final, we can try to convene a prep call before ICANN. Thanks— J. From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> > Date: Friday, October 7, 2016 at 11:57 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> >, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> >, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> > Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks Marika, you are absolutely correct, I was just looking for an explicit option spelled out there. And Yes James, happy to volunteer, wild horses couldn't keep me away.... cheers Stephanie On 2016-10-07 12:48, Marika Konings wrote: Stephanie, please see scenario and consequences #2: The Council should specify why it is of the view that the proposed modification is not consistent. Furthermore the Council could consider whether more work is required on the proposed modification to ensure that it is consistent with the intent of the policy recommendations (for example by reconstituting the IAG or forming a new group) or whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review. ‘Whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review’ would imply a PDP. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DQMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=Sgz_T3rUl3_-zJt0ia6bsFJ_QD04EGmlWXIylJEH6wA&s=c8cYkk9SVAP9WAbtip1bl29HTeHAH7gPgOtbzygpQ2o&e=> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DQMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=Sgz_T3rUl3_-zJt0ia6bsFJ_QD04EGmlWXIylJEH6wA&s=DRNWIw0SEHW5rzpIJV4GAoq76nlGl3dRXzIoDuHTxDY&e=> . From: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> Date: Friday 7 October 2016 at 10:34 To: "James M. Bladel" <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> <jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks for this. I see no mention of my motion, which basically confirmed my position (and that of NCSG, whose submission missed the deadline) that the policy was fundamentally flawed. I recognize noone wants another PDP but Council could also take the position that the policy needs to be revisited, and request a charter. Seems logical if it has never been used in a decade. Anyway, I would submit that such a document should mention the fact that there were minority views in the IAG that the policy itself has flaws which demand a fix. Stephanie Perrin On 2016-10-07 12:19, James M. Bladel wrote: Councilors – Having now considered --and withdrawn-- two separate motions on this topic, it is clear that we need to regroup, reassess, and consider our path(s) forward. Per the discussion on our 30 SEP call, I would like to convene a group of interested Councilors to kick off discussions and present options. For context, please see the attached Overview document prepared by Staff. This summary is intended to provide backgrounds, and kick start ideas for resolution, but by no means is it meant to serve as an exhaustive list. I’m hopeful this group can work together to reconcile the diverse opinions on this issue, and come back to Council one or more motions that have sufficient support to pass. Thank you, J.
Hi Paul – I’m open to postponing this work item, but if I recall from our 30 SEP meeting, we were going to use the opportunity in Hyderabad to catch up with some folks expected to be in attendance. This may no longer be possible, give the late changes to the ICANN57 schedule. What do others think? Thanks— J. From: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 14:29 To: 'Susan Kawaguchi' <susank@fb.com>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks James. Under normal conditions, I would be happy to volunteer. However, your email mentions a call before the next ICANN meeting to kick off the work of the group. Given that this has been languishing for some time, could we postpone the kickoff under after Hyderabad? There is just so very much to do to get ready to go, attend a 10 day meeting, and then return & recover that adding on something else, especially something which appears to be non-urgent, seems impractical. Any chance we could do a kick off the 3rd week in November? If so, I’m happy to join in the fun. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady, Jr. policy@paulmcgrady.com From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:16 PM To: James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law I can participate in this small group. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 10:41 AM To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks, Stephanie. Council Colleagues: So far, the folks volunteering for a small group are Donna, Stephanie and myself. Perhaps we could encourage a few more folks to join? Especially those from the IPC/BC/ISPC? Once our list is final, we can try to convene a prep call before ICANN. Thanks— J. From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Date: Friday, October 7, 2016 at 11:57 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks Marika, you are absolutely correct, I was just looking for an explicit option spelled out there. And Yes James, happy to volunteer, wild horses couldn't keep me away.... cheers Stephanie On 2016-10-07 12:48, Marika Konings wrote: Stephanie, please see scenario and consequences #2: The Council should specify why it is of the view that the proposed modification is not consistent. Furthermore the Council could consider whether more work is required on the proposed modification to ensure that it is consistent with the intent of the policy recommendations (for example by reconstituting the IAG or forming a new group) or whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review. ‘Whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review’ would imply a PDP. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DQMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=Sgz_T3rUl3_-zJt0ia6bsFJ_QD04EGmlWXIylJEH6wA&s=c8cYkk9SVAP9WAbtip1bl29HTeHAH7gPgOtbzygpQ2o&e=> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DQMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=Sgz_T3rUl3_-zJt0ia6bsFJ_QD04EGmlWXIylJEH6wA&s=DRNWIw0SEHW5rzpIJV4GAoq76nlGl3dRXzIoDuHTxDY&e=>. From: <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> Date: Friday 7 October 2016 at 10:34 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks for this. I see no mention of my motion, which basically confirmed my position (and that of NCSG, whose submission missed the deadline) that the policy was fundamentally flawed. I recognize noone wants another PDP but Council could also take the position that the policy needs to be revisited, and request a charter. Seems logical if it has never been used in a decade. Anyway, I would submit that such a document should mention the fact that there were minority views in the IAG that the policy itself has flaws which demand a fix. Stephanie Perrin On 2016-10-07 12:19, James M. Bladel wrote: Councilors – Having now considered --and withdrawn-- two separate motions on this topic, it is clear that we need to regroup, reassess, and consider our path(s) forward. Per the discussion on our 30 SEP call, I would like to convene a group of interested Councilors to kick off discussions and present options. For context, please see the attached Overview document prepared by Staff. This summary is intended to provide backgrounds, and kick start ideas for resolution, but by no means is it meant to serve as an exhaustive list. I’m hopeful this group can work together to reconcile the diverse opinions on this issue, and come back to Council one or more motions that have sufficient support to pass. Thank you, J.
Hi all, Apologies for not recalling the status of this discussion. Do we have an action item to revisit this? Thanks, Keith From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 6:01 PM To: Paul McGrady; 'Susan Kawaguchi'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Hi Paul – I’m open to postponing this work item, but if I recall from our 30 SEP meeting, we were going to use the opportunity in Hyderabad to catch up with some folks expected to be in attendance. This may no longer be possible, give the late changes to the ICANN57 schedule. What do others think? Thanks— J. From: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 14:29 To: 'Susan Kawaguchi' <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks James. Under normal conditions, I would be happy to volunteer. However, your email mentions a call before the next ICANN meeting to kick off the work of the group. Given that this has been languishing for some time, could we postpone the kickoff under after Hyderabad? There is just so very much to do to get ready to go, attend a 10 day meeting, and then return & recover that adding on something else, especially something which appears to be non-urgent, seems impractical. Any chance we could do a kick off the 3rd week in November? If so, I’m happy to join in the fun. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady, Jr. policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:16 PM To: James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law I can participate in this small group. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 10:41 AM To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks, Stephanie. Council Colleagues: So far, the folks volunteering for a small group are Donna, Stephanie and myself. Perhaps we could encourage a few more folks to join? Especially those from the IPC/BC/ISPC? Once our list is final, we can try to convene a prep call before ICANN. Thanks— J. From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Date: Friday, October 7, 2016 at 11:57 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks Marika, you are absolutely correct, I was just looking for an explicit option spelled out there. And Yes James, happy to volunteer, wild horses couldn't keep me away.... cheers Stephanie On 2016-10-07 12:48, Marika Konings wrote: Stephanie, please see scenario and consequences #2: The Council should specify why it is of the view that the proposed modification is not consistent. Furthermore the Council could consider whether more work is required on the proposed modification to ensure that it is consistent with the intent of the policy recommendations (for example by reconstituting the IAG or forming a new group) or whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review. ‘Whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review’ would imply a PDP. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DQMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=Sgz_T3rUl3_-zJt0ia6bsFJ_QD04EGmlWXIylJEH6wA&s=c8cYkk9SVAP9WAbtip1bl29HTeHAH7gPgOtbzygpQ2o&e=> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DQMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=Sgz_T3rUl3_-zJt0ia6bsFJ_QD04EGmlWXIylJEH6wA&s=DRNWIw0SEHW5rzpIJV4GAoq76nlGl3dRXzIoDuHTxDY&e=>. From: <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> Date: Friday 7 October 2016 at 10:34 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks for this. I see no mention of my motion, which basically confirmed my position (and that of NCSG, whose submission missed the deadline) that the policy was fundamentally flawed. I recognize noone wants another PDP but Council could also take the position that the policy needs to be revisited, and request a charter. Seems logical if it has never been used in a decade. Anyway, I would submit that such a document should mention the fact that there were minority views in the IAG that the policy itself has flaws which demand a fix. Stephanie Perrin On 2016-10-07 12:19, James M. Bladel wrote: Councilors – Having now considered --and withdrawn-- two separate motions on this topic, it is clear that we need to regroup, reassess, and consider our path(s) forward. Per the discussion on our 30 SEP call, I would like to convene a group of interested Councilors to kick off discussions and present options. For context, please see the attached Overview document prepared by Staff. This summary is intended to provide backgrounds, and kick start ideas for resolution, but by no means is it meant to serve as an exhaustive list. I’m hopeful this group can work together to reconcile the diverse opinions on this issue, and come back to Council one or more motions that have sufficient support to pass. Thank you, J.
Hi Keith – Yes, and my fault for not following up with Council on this action. We (a small group of folks) were able to meet in Hyderabad, and lay out a path forward that could be acceptable to those who’ve raised concerns during the previous two attempts to address this matter. Not to speak out of school, but I think we’re close to finalizing a motion for our January meeting that captures this approach. Thanks – J. From: Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com> Date: Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 9:32 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, "policy@paulmcgrady.com" <policy@paulmcgrady.com>, "susank@fb.com" <susank@fb.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Hi all, Apologies for not recalling the status of this discussion. Do we have an action item to revisit this? Thanks, Keith From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 6:01 PM To: Paul McGrady; 'Susan Kawaguchi'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Hi Paul – I’m open to postponing this work item, but if I recall from our 30 SEP meeting, we were going to use the opportunity in Hyderabad to catch up with some folks expected to be in attendance. This may no longer be possible, give the late changes to the ICANN57 schedule. What do others think? Thanks— J. From: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 14:29 To: 'Susan Kawaguchi' <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks James. Under normal conditions, I would be happy to volunteer. However, your email mentions a call before the next ICANN meeting to kick off the work of the group. Given that this has been languishing for some time, could we postpone the kickoff under after Hyderabad? There is just so very much to do to get ready to go, attend a 10 day meeting, and then return & recover that adding on something else, especially something which appears to be non-urgent, seems impractical. Any chance we could do a kick off the 3rd week in November? If so, I’m happy to join in the fun. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady, Jr. policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:16 PM To: James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law I can participate in this small group. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 10:41 AM To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks, Stephanie. Council Colleagues: So far, the folks volunteering for a small group are Donna, Stephanie and myself. Perhaps we could encourage a few more folks to join? Especially those from the IPC/BC/ISPC? Once our list is final, we can try to convene a prep call before ICANN. Thanks— J. From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Date: Friday, October 7, 2016 at 11:57 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks Marika, you are absolutely correct, I was just looking for an explicit option spelled out there. And Yes James, happy to volunteer, wild horses couldn't keep me away.... cheers Stephanie On 2016-10-07 12:48, Marika Konings wrote: Stephanie, please see scenario and consequences #2: The Council should specify why it is of the view that the proposed modification is not consistent. Furthermore the Council could consider whether more work is required on the proposed modification to ensure that it is consistent with the intent of the policy recommendations (for example by reconstituting the IAG or forming a new group) or whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review. ‘Whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review’ would imply a PDP. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DQMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=Sgz_T3rUl3_-zJt0ia6bsFJ_QD04EGmlWXIylJEH6wA&s=c8cYkk9SVAP9WAbtip1bl29HTeHAH7gPgOtbzygpQ2o&e=> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DQMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=Sgz_T3rUl3_-zJt0ia6bsFJ_QD04EGmlWXIylJEH6wA&s=DRNWIw0SEHW5rzpIJV4GAoq76nlGl3dRXzIoDuHTxDY&e=>. From: <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> Date: Friday 7 October 2016 at 10:34 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks for this. I see no mention of my motion, which basically confirmed my position (and that of NCSG, whose submission missed the deadline) that the policy was fundamentally flawed. I recognize noone wants another PDP but Council could also take the position that the policy needs to be revisited, and request a charter. Seems logical if it has never been used in a decade. Anyway, I would submit that such a document should mention the fact that there were minority views in the IAG that the policy itself has flaws which demand a fix. Stephanie Perrin On 2016-10-07 12:19, James M. Bladel wrote: Councilors – Having now considered --and withdrawn-- two separate motions on this topic, it is clear that we need to regroup, reassess, and consider our path(s) forward. Per the discussion on our 30 SEP call, I would like to convene a group of interested Councilors to kick off discussions and present options. For context, please see the attached Overview document prepared by Staff. This summary is intended to provide backgrounds, and kick start ideas for resolution, but by no means is it meant to serve as an exhaustive list. I’m hopeful this group can work together to reconcile the diverse opinions on this issue, and come back to Council one or more motions that have sufficient support to pass. Thank you, J.
Great, thanks James! Keith From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 11:08 AM To: Drazek, Keith; policy@paulmcgrady.com; susank@fb.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Hi Keith – Yes, and my fault for not following up with Council on this action. We (a small group of folks) were able to meet in Hyderabad, and lay out a path forward that could be acceptable to those who’ve raised concerns during the previous two attempts to address this matter. Not to speak out of school, but I think we’re close to finalizing a motion for our January meeting that captures this approach. Thanks – J. From: Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Date: Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 9:32 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, "policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>" <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, "susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>" <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Hi all, Apologies for not recalling the status of this discussion. Do we have an action item to revisit this? Thanks, Keith From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 6:01 PM To: Paul McGrady; 'Susan Kawaguchi'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Hi Paul – I’m open to postponing this work item, but if I recall from our 30 SEP meeting, we were going to use the opportunity in Hyderabad to catch up with some folks expected to be in attendance. This may no longer be possible, give the late changes to the ICANN57 schedule. What do others think? Thanks— J. From: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 14:29 To: 'Susan Kawaguchi' <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks James. Under normal conditions, I would be happy to volunteer. However, your email mentions a call before the next ICANN meeting to kick off the work of the group. Given that this has been languishing for some time, could we postpone the kickoff under after Hyderabad? There is just so very much to do to get ready to go, attend a 10 day meeting, and then return & recover that adding on something else, especially something which appears to be non-urgent, seems impractical. Any chance we could do a kick off the 3rd week in November? If so, I’m happy to join in the fun. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady, Jr. policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:16 PM To: James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law I can participate in this small group. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 10:41 AM To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks, Stephanie. Council Colleagues: So far, the folks volunteering for a small group are Donna, Stephanie and myself. Perhaps we could encourage a few more folks to join? Especially those from the IPC/BC/ISPC? Once our list is final, we can try to convene a prep call before ICANN. Thanks— J. From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Date: Friday, October 7, 2016 at 11:57 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks Marika, you are absolutely correct, I was just looking for an explicit option spelled out there. And Yes James, happy to volunteer, wild horses couldn't keep me away.... cheers Stephanie On 2016-10-07 12:48, Marika Konings wrote: Stephanie, please see scenario and consequences #2: The Council should specify why it is of the view that the proposed modification is not consistent. Furthermore the Council could consider whether more work is required on the proposed modification to ensure that it is consistent with the intent of the policy recommendations (for example by reconstituting the IAG or forming a new group) or whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review. ‘Whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review’ would imply a PDP. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DQMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=Sgz_T3rUl3_-zJt0ia6bsFJ_QD04EGmlWXIylJEH6wA&s=c8cYkk9SVAP9WAbtip1bl29HTeHAH7gPgOtbzygpQ2o&e=> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DQMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=Sgz_T3rUl3_-zJt0ia6bsFJ_QD04EGmlWXIylJEH6wA&s=DRNWIw0SEHW5rzpIJV4GAoq76nlGl3dRXzIoDuHTxDY&e=>. From: <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> Date: Friday 7 October 2016 at 10:34 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law Thanks for this. I see no mention of my motion, which basically confirmed my position (and that of NCSG, whose submission missed the deadline) that the policy was fundamentally flawed. I recognize noone wants another PDP but Council could also take the position that the policy needs to be revisited, and request a charter. Seems logical if it has never been used in a decade. Anyway, I would submit that such a document should mention the fact that there were minority views in the IAG that the policy itself has flaws which demand a fix. Stephanie Perrin On 2016-10-07 12:19, James M. Bladel wrote: Councilors – Having now considered --and withdrawn-- two separate motions on this topic, it is clear that we need to regroup, reassess, and consider our path(s) forward. Per the discussion on our 30 SEP call, I would like to convene a group of interested Councilors to kick off discussions and present options. For context, please see the attached Overview document prepared by Staff. This summary is intended to provide backgrounds, and kick start ideas for resolution, but by no means is it meant to serve as an exhaustive list. I’m hopeful this group can work together to reconcile the diverse opinions on this issue, and come back to Council one or more motions that have sufficient support to pass. Thank you, J.
participants (7)
-
Austin, Donna -
Drazek, Keith -
James M. Bladel -
Marika Konings -
Paul McGrady -
Stephanie Perrin -
Susan Kawaguchi