FOR REVIEW/COMMENTS: Draft GNSO Council response on gTLD policy issues in the GAC Copenhagen Communique
Dear Councilors, As discussed on the Council call yesterday, please find attached the current draft of a possible GNSO Council response to the gTLD policy issues raised in the GAC’s Copenhagen Communique. Staff had taken the liberty, when assisting the group of Council volunteers on this effort, of inserting certain comments and suggestions that are also reflected in the document. Please review the document and send your comments and suggestions to this mailing list. As noted on the Council call, the Board’s call with the GAC on the Communique is scheduled for 27 April, so it will be ideal if the Council chairs are in a position to send a note generally highlighting the Council’s views before that date, with a view toward formal Council adoption of the final text at the Council’s next meeting in mid-May. Thanks and cheers Mary
Councilors – Please see attached for a revised version of this comment document. Note that due to a configuration error, I appear as both “James Bladel” and “Microsoft User”. I’ve attempted to clarify existing comments, but I believe we still have some work to do in item #2 (IGO Protections). I’m good with the other elements of the comment. As we are attempting to hit a short deadline, please review and provide your comments as soon as possible. I will then work with Staff to (a) restructure this document in the form of a letter that can be sent to the Board and (b) prepare a new formal motion for consideration at or before our next meeting. Thank you, J. From: <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Friday, April 21, 2017 at 10:18 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] FOR REVIEW/COMMENTS: Draft GNSO Council response on gTLD policy issues in the GAC Copenhagen Communique Dear Councilors, As discussed on the Council call yesterday, please find attached the current draft of a possible GNSO Council response to the gTLD policy issues raised in the GAC’s Copenhagen Communique. Staff had taken the liberty, when assisting the group of Council volunteers on this effort, of inserting certain comments and suggestions that are also reflected in the document. Please review the document and send your comments and suggestions to this mailing list. As noted on the Council call, the Board’s call with the GAC on the Communique is scheduled for 27 April, so it will be ideal if the Council chairs are in a position to send a note generally highlighting the Council’s views before that date, with a view toward formal Council adoption of the final text at the Council’s next meeting in mid-May. Thanks and cheers Mary
Item #1, I suggest we change: A motion to invoke this process is currently under consideration To A motion to invoke this extraordinary process is currently under consideration. Item #4 Typos –defind should be defined and containted should be contained and committment should be commitment. Otherwise, looks swell to me. Best, Paul From: council-bounces@gnso.icann.org [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 3:04 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] FOR REVIEW/COMMENTS: Draft GNSO Council response on gTLD policy issues in the GAC Copenhagen Communique Councilors – Please see attached for a revised version of this comment document. Note that due to a configuration error, I appear as both “James Bladel” and “Microsoft User”. I’ve attempted to clarify existing comments, but I believe we still have some work to do in item #2 (IGO Protections). I’m good with the other elements of the comment. As we are attempting to hit a short deadline, please review and provide your comments as soon as possible. I will then work with Staff to (a) restructure this document in the form of a letter that can be sent to the Board and (b) prepare a new formal motion for consideration at or before our next meeting. Thank you, J. From: <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Friday, April 21, 2017 at 10:18 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] FOR REVIEW/COMMENTS: Draft GNSO Council response on gTLD policy issues in the GAC Copenhagen Communique Dear Councilors, As discussed on the Council call yesterday, please find attached the current draft of a possible GNSO Council response to the gTLD policy issues raised in the GAC’s Copenhagen Communique. Staff had taken the liberty, when assisting the group of Council volunteers on this effort, of inserting certain comments and suggestions that are also reflected in the document. Please review the document and send your comments and suggestions to this mailing list. As noted on the Council call, the Board’s call with the GAC on the Communique is scheduled for 27 April, so it will be ideal if the Council chairs are in a position to send a note generally highlighting the Council’s views before that date, with a view toward formal Council adoption of the final text at the Council’s next meeting in mid-May. Thanks and cheers Mary ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
James, sorry for missing the call last Thursday. Here are my personal suggestions to the issues that a focused letter should raise to the board before their meeting with the GAC based on comments of the drafting team so far: 1. In the case of the Red Cross et. al., the Copenhagen mediation by a former Board member made a clear Board resolution possible! The GNSO council looks forward to a revision of the policy based on this resolution, as the international law basis for the Red Cross et.al. can be considered rather homogeneous. 2. In the case to the IGOs, The GNSO’s IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group is actively reviewing all comments received on its Initial Report, including the comment submitted by the GAC. It remains clear from the mediation efforts during the Copenhagen meeting, that there is still the expectation in the Council that the Boards owes the GNSO community a clear resolution to direct future efforts in an efficient way forward, as was the case with the Red Cross et.al. 3. In the case of the delegation of 2-letter codes, some members of the Council will like to raise serious concerns to the Board, of the impact that bilateral case by case resolution with Governments could have on the principle of bottom-up policy development of ICANN. Instead of developing a consensus position that all GAC members have agreed with, the Consensus Advice mechanism found in the bylaws is being circumvented to order the ICANN Board to negotiate with, and presumably reach agreement on, each government’s individual demands. This should not be considered proper “Consensus Advice”, but could rather be considered an attempt to circumvent the very clear threshold for the GAC to issue “Consensus Advice”. 4. In the case of the Mitigation of the DNS abuse, the GNSO Council refers to its input to the Board regarding the GAC’s Hyderabad Communique on this topic, and reiterates the concerns it stated in that response: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-15dec16-en.pdf. I hope it helps. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:04 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Councilors –
Please see attached for a revised version of this comment document. Note that due to a configuration error, I appear as both “James Bladel” and “Microsoft User”. I’ve attempted to clarify existing comments, but I believe we still have some work to do in item #2 (IGO Protections). I’m good with the other elements of the comment.
As we are attempting to hit a short deadline, please review and provide your comments as soon as possible. I will then work with Staff to (a) restructure this document in the form of a letter that can be sent to the Board and (b) prepare a new formal motion for consideration at or before our next meeting.
Thank you,
J.
*From: *<council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong < mary.wong@icann.org> *Date: *Friday, April 21, 2017 at 10:18 *To: *GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *[council] FOR REVIEW/COMMENTS: Draft GNSO Council response on gTLD policy issues in the GAC Copenhagen Communique
Dear Councilors,
As discussed on the Council call yesterday, please find attached the current draft of a possible GNSO Council response to the gTLD policy issues raised in the GAC’s Copenhagen Communique. Staff had taken the liberty, when assisting the group of Council volunteers on this effort, of inserting certain comments and suggestions that are also reflected in the document.
Please review the document and send your comments and suggestions to this mailing list. As noted on the Council call, the Board’s call with the GAC on the Communique is scheduled for 27 April, so it will be ideal if the Council chairs are in a position to send a note generally highlighting the Council’s views before that date, with a view toward formal Council adoption of the final text at the Council’s next meeting in mid-May.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
participants (4)
-
Carlos Raul Gutierrez -
icannlists -
James M. Bladel -
Mary Wong