Fwd: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro)
Dear Council, Please find below the response from the GAC point of contact. The communique does indeed ask for more than just having an observer, but for the ability to have additional participants in the group, but also recognizing the need for a closed group. I know there is a small group that is reviewing this, but I will leave it to the Council to decide if it wants to discuss this as a whole. Sincerely, Jeffrey J. Neuman GNSO Liaison to GAC ________________________________ From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 1:15 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> Cc: manal@tra.gov.eg <manal@tra.gov.eg>; sebastien@registry.godaddy <sebastien@registry.godaddy> Subject: AW: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) Dear Jeff Thanks very much for your question. IMO the GAC Communique calls for something more than just "observer" status beyond the one member slot accorded to the GAC (as to other ACs). At the same time I feel the GAC is not asking the GNSO to completely get rid of a closed approach for the membership of the GGP WG, but perhaps allowing for 3 GAC Members or perhaps 2 Members and 2 Alternates - in order to allow for full participation of those in the GAC who have shown interest in having an active role. I have informally exchanged on this with Manal, and she’ll follow-up on Philippe‘s letter calling for volunteers shortly, making reference to the GAC Communique and our reading of it. hope this helps for the time being kindly jorge ________________________________ Von: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> Datum: 26. September 2022 um 23:40:13 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>, Sebastien@registry.godaddy <sebastien@registry.godaddy> Betreff: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) Dear Jorge, In the GAC Communique, it states: “Stressing the need to promote diversity and a balanced geographical engagement among stakeholders, the GAC reaffirmed its continued interest in the improvement of Applicant Support for the next round of New gTLDs, noting the importance of active GAC participation in the upcoming GGP. In this regard, the GAC calls on the GNSO Council to allow broader participation from interested GAC participants, as well as other members of the community, beyond the single member per Advisory Committee presently envisioned by the call for volunteers communicated to the GAC.” As you may be aware, all members of the community, including the GAC, are invited to be observers to the GGP group which will provide them with read only access to the mailing list and the ability to join all group calls in listen-only mode. Is the Communique asking the GNSO to open the GGP group up to all community members to be participants and not just observers? Or does the “observer” status for all members of the community satisfy the GAC’s request? Sincerely, Jeff Neuman GNSO Liaison to GAC [cid:image001.png@01D8D1CE.FC3B1BF0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com
Forgive the short message; I’m in a (non-ICANN 😉) meeting. I think we need to remember, and point out, how careful we were to keep this group small and agile & avoid the establishment of a “mirror Council”. The idea is that the group would be able to organise and draw on SMEs in AS as appropriate, as outlined in the SubPro Report. So can we not explain that to the GAC, and tell them that we will of course be turning to relevant GAC members as those SMEs but that this is just the umbrella group over-seeing that operational work before it is returned to Council for any policy development as appropriate? Thanks, Marie From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman via council Sent: Wednesday, 28 September 2022 11:53 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Fwd: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) Dear Council, Please find below the response from the GAC point of contact. The communique does indeed ask for more than just having an observer, but for the ability to have additional participants in the group, but also recognizing the need for a closed group. I know there is a small group that is reviewing this, but I will leave it to the Council to decide if it wants to discuss this as a whole. Sincerely, Jeffrey J. Neuman GNSO Liaison to GAC ________________________________ From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 1:15 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Cc: manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> <manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>>; sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> <sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy>> Subject: AW: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) Dear Jeff Thanks very much for your question. IMO the GAC Communique calls for something more than just "observer" status beyond the one member slot accorded to the GAC (as to other ACs). At the same time I feel the GAC is not asking the GNSO to completely get rid of a closed approach for the membership of the GGP WG, but perhaps allowing for 3 GAC Members or perhaps 2 Members and 2 Alternates - in order to allow for full participation of those in the GAC who have shown interest in having an active role. I have informally exchanged on this with Manal, and she’ll follow-up on Philippe‘s letter calling for volunteers shortly, making reference to the GAC Communique and our reading of it. hope this helps for the time being kindly jorge ________________________________ Von: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Datum: 26. September 2022 um 23:40:13 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>>, Sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:Sebastien@registry.godaddy> <sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy>> Betreff: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) Dear Jorge, In the GAC Communique, it states: “Stressing the need to promote diversity and a balanced geographical engagement among stakeholders, the GAC reaffirmed its continued interest in the improvement of Applicant Support for the next round of New gTLDs, noting the importance of active GAC participation in the upcoming GGP. In this regard, the GAC calls on the GNSO Council to allow broader participation from interested GAC participants, as well as other members of the community, beyond the single member per Advisory Committee presently envisioned by the call for volunteers communicated to the GAC.” As you may be aware, all members of the community, including the GAC, are invited to be observers to the GGP group which will provide them with read only access to the mailing list and the ability to join all group calls in listen-only mode. Is the Communique asking the GNSO to open the GGP group up to all community members to be participants and not just observers? Or does the “observer” status for all members of the community satisfy the GAC’s request? Sincerely, Jeff Neuman GNSO Liaison to GAC [cid:image001.png@01D8D1CE.FC3B1BF0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com%3cmailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> http://jjnsolutions.com
I agree Marie, I think we should explain this. It sounds as though there will need to be a reply to Manal anyway, even if we decide not to include in a response to the Communique – but I am in the camp that thinks we should not limit the Communique response just to Formal Advice if there’s an issue where the Council’s response can assist the Board. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image001.png@01D8D32C.07B3DF40]<https://comlaude.com/> From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo - AIM via council Sent: 28 September 2022 11:06 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) Forgive the short message; I’m in a (non-ICANN 😉) meeting. I think we need to remember, and point out, how careful we were to keep this group small and agile & avoid the establishment of a “mirror Council”. The idea is that the group would be able to organise and draw on SMEs in AS as appropriate, as outlined in the SubPro Report. So can we not explain that to the GAC, and tell them that we will of course be turning to relevant GAC members as those SMEs but that this is just the umbrella group over-seeing that operational work before it is returned to Council for any policy development as appropriate? Thanks, Marie From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman via council Sent: Wednesday, 28 September 2022 11:53 To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Fwd: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) Dear Council, Please find below the response from the GAC point of contact. The communique does indeed ask for more than just having an observer, but for the ability to have additional participants in the group, but also recognizing the need for a closed group. I know there is a small group that is reviewing this, but I will leave it to the Council to decide if it wants to discuss this as a whole. Sincerely, Jeffrey J. Neuman GNSO Liaison to GAC ________________________________ From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 1:15 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Cc: manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> <manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>>; sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> <sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy>> Subject: AW: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) Dear Jeff Thanks very much for your question. IMO the GAC Communique calls for something more than just "observer" status beyond the one member slot accorded to the GAC (as to other ACs). At the same time I feel the GAC is not asking the GNSO to completely get rid of a closed approach for the membership of the GGP WG, but perhaps allowing for 3 GAC Members or perhaps 2 Members and 2 Alternates - in order to allow for full participation of those in the GAC who have shown interest in having an active role. I have informally exchanged on this with Manal, and she’ll follow-up on Philippe‘s letter calling for volunteers shortly, making reference to the GAC Communique and our reading of it. hope this helps for the time being kindly jorge ________________________________ Von: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Datum: 26. September 2022 um 23:40:13 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>>, Sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:Sebastien@registry.godaddy> <sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy>> Betreff: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) Dear Jorge, In the GAC Communique, it states: “Stressing the need to promote diversity and a balanced geographical engagement among stakeholders, the GAC reaffirmed its continued interest in the improvement of Applicant Support for the next round of New gTLDs, noting the importance of active GAC participation in the upcoming GGP. In this regard, the GAC calls on the GNSO Council to allow broader participation from interested GAC participants, as well as other members of the community, beyond the single member per Advisory Committee presently envisioned by the call for volunteers communicated to the GAC.” As you may be aware, all members of the community, including the GAC, are invited to be observers to the GGP group which will provide them with read only access to the mailing list and the ability to join all group calls in listen-only mode. Is the Communique asking the GNSO to open the GGP group up to all community members to be participants and not just observers? Or does the “observer” status for all members of the community satisfy the GAC’s request? Sincerely, Jeff Neuman GNSO Liaison to GAC [cid:image001.png@01D8D1CE.FC3B1BF0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com%3cmailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> http://jjnsolutions.com ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>
Thanks Susan and Marie. I think Marie hit the nail on the head in that this is not intended as the only people that will decide the issues, but rather the umbrella group. As we know, Applicant Support is one of the key priorities for the GAC, so some reassurance that they will be able to participate in the substantive discussions will be important in my humble opinion. this is a good discussion. Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image002.png@01D8D31B.7FD123E0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 6:18 AM To: Marie Pattullo - AIM <marie.pattullo@aim.be>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) I agree Marie, I think we should explain this. It sounds as though there will need to be a reply to Manal anyway, even if we decide not to include in a response to the Communique – but I am in the camp that thinks we should not limit the Communique response just to Formal Advice if there’s an issue where the Council’s response can assist the Board. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image003.png@01D8D31B.7FD123E0]<https://comlaude.com/> From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo - AIM via council Sent: 28 September 2022 11:06 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) Forgive the short message; I’m in a (non-ICANN 😉) meeting. I think we need to remember, and point out, how careful we were to keep this group small and agile & avoid the establishment of a “mirror Council”. The idea is that the group would be able to organise and draw on SMEs in AS as appropriate, as outlined in the SubPro Report. So can we not explain that to the GAC, and tell them that we will of course be turning to relevant GAC members as those SMEs but that this is just the umbrella group over-seeing that operational work before it is returned to Council for any policy development as appropriate? Thanks, Marie From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman via council Sent: Wednesday, 28 September 2022 11:53 To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Fwd: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) Dear Council, Please find below the response from the GAC point of contact. The communique does indeed ask for more than just having an observer, but for the ability to have additional participants in the group, but also recognizing the need for a closed group. I know there is a small group that is reviewing this, but I will leave it to the Council to decide if it wants to discuss this as a whole. Sincerely, Jeffrey J. Neuman GNSO Liaison to GAC ________________________________ From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 1:15 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Cc: manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> <manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>>; sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> <sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy>> Subject: AW: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) Dear Jeff Thanks very much for your question. IMO the GAC Communique calls for something more than just "observer" status beyond the one member slot accorded to the GAC (as to other ACs). At the same time I feel the GAC is not asking the GNSO to completely get rid of a closed approach for the membership of the GGP WG, but perhaps allowing for 3 GAC Members or perhaps 2 Members and 2 Alternates - in order to allow for full participation of those in the GAC who have shown interest in having an active role. I have informally exchanged on this with Manal, and she’ll follow-up on Philippe‘s letter calling for volunteers shortly, making reference to the GAC Communique and our reading of it. hope this helps for the time being kindly jorge ________________________________ Von: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Datum: 26. September 2022 um 23:40:13 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>>, Sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:Sebastien@registry.godaddy> <sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy>> Betreff: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) Dear Jorge, In the GAC Communique, it states: “Stressing the need to promote diversity and a balanced geographical engagement among stakeholders, the GAC reaffirmed its continued interest in the improvement of Applicant Support for the next round of New gTLDs, noting the importance of active GAC participation in the upcoming GGP. In this regard, the GAC calls on the GNSO Council to allow broader participation from interested GAC participants, as well as other members of the community, beyond the single member per Advisory Committee presently envisioned by the call for volunteers communicated to the GAC.” As you may be aware, all members of the community, including the GAC, are invited to be observers to the GGP group which will provide them with read only access to the mailing list and the ability to join all group calls in listen-only mode. Is the Communique asking the GNSO to open the GGP group up to all community members to be participants and not just observers? Or does the “observer” status for all members of the community satisfy the GAC’s request? Sincerely, Jeff Neuman GNSO Liaison to GAC [cid:image001.png@01D8D1CE.FC3B1BF0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com%3cmailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> http://jjnsolutions.com ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>
Thanks Jeff et al. I think that it could be a slippery road to go down to talk about GAC members being recruited as “Subject Matter Experts”. I think the GGP reps have to determine what the qualifications are for SMEs and it would be difficult indeed to reject certain GAC members as SMEs and could cause a lot of “bad blood” if the group determines that a particular GAC member does not mee the SME requirements. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel AAikman@lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman@lewisroca.com> D. 520.629.4428 [cid:image004.png@01D8D323.CF9EB330] From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman via council Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 6:21 AM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; Marie Pattullo - AIM <marie.pattullo@aim.be>; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Thanks Susan and Marie. I think Marie hit the nail on the head in that this is not intended as the only people that will decide the issues, but rather the umbrella group. As we know, Applicant Support is one of the key priorities for the GAC, so some reassurance that they will be able to participate in the substantive discussions will be important in my humble opinion. this is a good discussion. Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image005.png@01D8D323.CF9EB330] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 6:18 AM To: Marie Pattullo - AIM <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) I agree Marie, I think we should explain this. It sounds as though there will need to be a reply to Manal anyway, even if we decide not to include in a response to the Communique – but I am in the camp that thinks we should not limit the Communique response just to Formal Advice if there’s an issue where the Council’s response can assist the Board. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image006.png@01D8D323.CF9EB330]<https://comlaude.com/> From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo - AIM via council Sent: 28 September 2022 11:06 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) Forgive the short message; I’m in a (non-ICANN 😉) meeting. I think we need to remember, and point out, how careful we were to keep this group small and agile & avoid the establishment of a “mirror Council”. The idea is that the group would be able to organise and draw on SMEs in AS as appropriate, as outlined in the SubPro Report. So can we not explain that to the GAC, and tell them that we will of course be turning to relevant GAC members as those SMEs but that this is just the umbrella group over-seeing that operational work before it is returned to Council for any policy development as appropriate? Thanks, Marie From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman via council Sent: Wednesday, 28 September 2022 11:53 To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Fwd: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) Dear Council, Please find below the response from the GAC point of contact. The communique does indeed ask for more than just having an observer, but for the ability to have additional participants in the group, but also recognizing the need for a closed group. I know there is a small group that is reviewing this, but I will leave it to the Council to decide if it wants to discuss this as a whole. Sincerely, Jeffrey J. Neuman GNSO Liaison to GAC ________________________________ From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 1:15 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Cc: manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> <manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>>; sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> <sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy>> Subject: AW: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) Dear Jeff Thanks very much for your question. IMO the GAC Communique calls for something more than just "observer" status beyond the one member slot accorded to the GAC (as to other ACs). At the same time I feel the GAC is not asking the GNSO to completely get rid of a closed approach for the membership of the GGP WG, but perhaps allowing for 3 GAC Members or perhaps 2 Members and 2 Alternates - in order to allow for full participation of those in the GAC who have shown interest in having an active role. I have informally exchanged on this with Manal, and she’ll follow-up on Philippe‘s letter calling for volunteers shortly, making reference to the GAC Communique and our reading of it. hope this helps for the time being kindly jorge ________________________________ Von: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Datum: 26. September 2022 um 23:40:13 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>>, Sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:Sebastien@registry.godaddy> <sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy>> Betreff: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) Dear Jorge, In the GAC Communique, it states: “Stressing the need to promote diversity and a balanced geographical engagement among stakeholders, the GAC reaffirmed its continued interest in the improvement of Applicant Support for the next round of New gTLDs, noting the importance of active GAC participation in the upcoming GGP. In this regard, the GAC calls on the GNSO Council to allow broader participation from interested GAC participants, as well as other members of the community, beyond the single member per Advisory Committee presently envisioned by the call for volunteers communicated to the GAC.” As you may be aware, all members of the community, including the GAC, are invited to be observers to the GGP group which will provide them with read only access to the mailing list and the ability to join all group calls in listen-only mode. Is the Communique asking the GNSO to open the GGP group up to all community members to be participants and not just observers? Or does the “observer” status for all members of the community satisfy the GAC’s request? Sincerely, Jeff Neuman GNSO Liaison to GAC [cid:image001.png@01D8D1CE.FC3B1BF0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com%3cmailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> http://jjnsolutions.com ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Thanks Anne. The Council needs to discuss how it wants to handle this and of course I will deliver the message. If I can make a suggestion, which you do not have to accept of course, but perhaps the small group can divide its work in such a way that the GAC members (as well as others) can work on some of the areas they care most about. For example, I know the GAC is very concerned about outreach and making sure the world (especially those in developing nations) knows that the program exists. GAC members can be instrumental in helping spread the word in their own countries, so perhaps letting them all be on a sub-group to discuss outreach may be a good thing. I believe, but may be wrong (not the first time) that the operational details as to how applicants are evaluated for the program are not the type of discussions most GAC members want to be part of (and do not have the expertise). So having them be SMEs for that part of the work may not be appropriate, but tht may be ok. Just some food for thought……. [cid:image002.png@01D8D354.D7FFF8A0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lewisroca.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 1:20 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; Marie Pattullo - AIM <marie.pattullo@aim.be>; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) Thanks Jeff et al. I think that it could be a slippery road to go down to talk about GAC members being recruited as “Subject Matter Experts”. I think the GGP reps have to determine what the qualifications are for SMEs and it would be difficult indeed to reject certain GAC members as SMEs and could cause a lot of “bad blood” if the group determines that a particular GAC member does not mee the SME requirements. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel AAikman@lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman@lewisroca.com> D. 520.629.4428 [cid:image004.png@01D8D354.D7FFF8A0] From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman via council Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 6:21 AM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>>; Marie Pattullo - AIM <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>>; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Thanks Susan and Marie. I think Marie hit the nail on the head in that this is not intended as the only people that will decide the issues, but rather the umbrella group. As we know, Applicant Support is one of the key priorities for the GAC, so some reassurance that they will be able to participate in the substantive discussions will be important in my humble opinion. this is a good discussion. Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image002.png@01D8D354.D7FFF8A0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 6:18 AM To: Marie Pattullo - AIM <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) I agree Marie, I think we should explain this. It sounds as though there will need to be a reply to Manal anyway, even if we decide not to include in a response to the Communique – but I am in the camp that thinks we should not limit the Communique response just to Formal Advice if there’s an issue where the Council’s response can assist the Board. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image005.png@01D8D354.D7FFF8A0]<https://comlaude.com/> From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo - AIM via council Sent: 28 September 2022 11:06 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) Forgive the short message; I’m in a (non-ICANN 😉) meeting. I think we need to remember, and point out, how careful we were to keep this group small and agile & avoid the establishment of a “mirror Council”. The idea is that the group would be able to organise and draw on SMEs in AS as appropriate, as outlined in the SubPro Report. So can we not explain that to the GAC, and tell them that we will of course be turning to relevant GAC members as those SMEs but that this is just the umbrella group over-seeing that operational work before it is returned to Council for any policy development as appropriate? Thanks, Marie From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman via council Sent: Wednesday, 28 September 2022 11:53 To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Fwd: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) Dear Council, Please find below the response from the GAC point of contact. The communique does indeed ask for more than just having an observer, but for the ability to have additional participants in the group, but also recognizing the need for a closed group. I know there is a small group that is reviewing this, but I will leave it to the Council to decide if it wants to discuss this as a whole. Sincerely, Jeffrey J. Neuman GNSO Liaison to GAC ________________________________ From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 1:15 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Cc: manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> <manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>>; sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> <sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy>> Subject: AW: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) Dear Jeff Thanks very much for your question. IMO the GAC Communique calls for something more than just "observer" status beyond the one member slot accorded to the GAC (as to other ACs). At the same time I feel the GAC is not asking the GNSO to completely get rid of a closed approach for the membership of the GGP WG, but perhaps allowing for 3 GAC Members or perhaps 2 Members and 2 Alternates - in order to allow for full participation of those in the GAC who have shown interest in having an active role. I have informally exchanged on this with Manal, and she’ll follow-up on Philippe‘s letter calling for volunteers shortly, making reference to the GAC Communique and our reading of it. hope this helps for the time being kindly jorge ________________________________ Von: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Datum: 26. September 2022 um 23:40:13 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>>, Sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:Sebastien@registry.godaddy> <sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy>> Betreff: Clarification Question on the GAC Communique (SubPro) Dear Jorge, In the GAC Communique, it states: “Stressing the need to promote diversity and a balanced geographical engagement among stakeholders, the GAC reaffirmed its continued interest in the improvement of Applicant Support for the next round of New gTLDs, noting the importance of active GAC participation in the upcoming GGP. In this regard, the GAC calls on the GNSO Council to allow broader participation from interested GAC participants, as well as other members of the community, beyond the single member per Advisory Committee presently envisioned by the call for volunteers communicated to the GAC.” As you may be aware, all members of the community, including the GAC, are invited to be observers to the GGP group which will provide them with read only access to the mailing list and the ability to join all group calls in listen-only mode. Is the Communique asking the GNSO to open the GGP group up to all community members to be participants and not just observers? Or does the “observer” status for all members of the community satisfy the GAC’s request? Sincerely, Jeff Neuman GNSO Liaison to GAC [cid:image001.png@01D8D1CE.FC3B1BF0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com%3cmailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> http://jjnsolutions.com ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
participants (4)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Jeff Neuman -
Marie Pattullo - AIM -
Susan Payne