RE: [council] RE: REMINDER: Agenda Board meeting with GNSO Council - Sunday March 13, 4pm 5:30 pm
also, can we find out before SF if the actual consultation with GAC is or is not going to take place there? At the end, it sounded like the GAC was not on the same page about that. I'm not clear on whether that was resolved or not. Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] RE: REMINDER: Agenda Board meeting with GNSO Council - Sunday March 13, 4pm 5:30 pm From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Date: Thu, March 03, 2011 4:22 pm To: Glen de Saint Géry<Glen@icann.org>, Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org>
I would like to add a topic (if others agree) on new TLDs, but specifically the role of the GNSO community in addressing any new items that come out of the GAC/BD discussions on new gTLDs. More specifically, to the extent that there are any inconsistencies between the policy advice given by the GNSO and what the ICANN Board agrees to with the GAC, how will those matters be handled?
I did attend the Brussels meeting this week and I am not so concerned about the concessions that were already made (other than some implementation questions I have as a registry), but if some of the "2s" given by the ICANN Board become a "1A or 1B" in the next few weeks, I believe we may have a conflict that needs to be worked out.
I hope that made sense to people.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 5:12 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] REMINDER: Agenda Board meeting with GNSO Council - Sunday March 13, 4pm 5:30 pm
REMINDER: These topics should be confirmed no later than by the close of Business tomorrow, 4 March so that they can be transmitted to the Board.
Thank you Kind regards, Glen
Dear Council Members,
In relation with the meeting with the Board on Sunday afternoon, we should send an agenda for this meeting as soon as possible.
In this sense let me remind you that during the last Council meeting it was agreed to propose the topic:
- Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation: context of the Board resolution
Should you have other topics to be included in the agenda, please let Glen and myself know as soon as possible.
Best regards and thanks.
Olga
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
I think you will get a lot of different answers on this. There will be discussions with the GAC in SF (probably 2 days worth). The ICANN Board has taken the position that these meetings will suffice under the ICANN Bylaws as the required consultation for a number of reasons that Peter, Rita and others went into (and that you can read in the transcripts). Some of the governments have taken a position that (a) they never agreed that a meeting in SF would in fact constitute the “consultation” required under the bylaws (and were surprised by ICANN’s resolution in January that declared that March 17th would be the date, and (b) there may not enough time between the Brussels meeting and the SF meeting for each of the governments to go back home to their “capitals” to get the appropriate feedback necessary to enable the governments to consider the SF meeting as the official consultation. The governments also want a written response to their scorecard from the ICANN that puts down in writing what the ICANN Board preliminarily determined in Brussels. That should come out in the next couple of days (I have heard). So, in sum, there was no resolution on that issue, but it is clear that there will be discussions that are taking place. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 5:37 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] RE: REMINDER: Agenda Board meeting with GNSO Council - Sunday March 13, 4pm 5:30 pm also, can we find out before SF if the actual consultation with GAC is or is not going to take place there? At the end, it sounded like the GAC was not on the same page about that. I'm not clear on whether that was resolved or not. Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] RE: REMINDER: Agenda Board meeting with GNSO Council - Sunday March 13, 4pm 5:30 pm From: "Neuman, Jeff" Date: Thu, March 03, 2011 4:22 pm To: Glen de Saint Géry, Council GNSO
I would like to add a topic (if others agree) on new TLDs, but specifically the role of the GNSO community in addressing any new items that come out of the GAC/BD discussions on new gTLDs. More specifically, to the extent that there are any inconsistencies between the policy advice given by the GNSO and what the ICANN Board agrees to with the GAC, how will those matters be handled?
I did attend the Brussels meeting this week and I am not so concerned about the concessions that were already made (other than some implementation questions I have as a registry), but if some of the "2s" given by the ICANN Board become a "1A or 1B" in the next few weeks, I believe we may have a conflict that needs to be worked out.
I hope that made sense to people.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 5:12 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] REMINDER: Agenda Board meeting with GNSO Council - Sunday March 13, 4pm 5:30 pm
REMINDER: These topics should be confirmed no later than by the close of Business tomorrow, 4 March so that they can be transmitted to the Board.
Thank you Kind regards, Glen
Dear Council Members,
In relation with the meeting with the Board on Sunday afternoon, we should send an agenda for this meeting as soon as possible.
In this sense let me remind you that during the last Council meeting it was agreed to propose the topic:
- Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation: context of the Board resolution
Should you have other topics to be included in the agenda, please let Glen and myself know as soon as possible.
Best regards and thanks.
Olga
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
My understanding is that there will be 2 GAC/Board sessions in SF, instead of the one originally planned. But as Jeff says, I don't think there's anything set in stone at the moment. We are still awaiting the final Board response to the GAC scorecard, with the Board's scores (i.e. 1a, 1b and 2) for every item. Stéphane Le 3 mars 2011 à 23:52, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
I think you will get a lot of different answers on this. There will be discussions with the GAC in SF (probably 2 days worth). The ICANN Board has taken the position that these meetings will suffice under the ICANN Bylaws as the required consultation for a number of reasons that Peter, Rita and others went into (and that you can read in the transcripts).
Some of the governments have taken a position that (a) they never agreed that a meeting in SF would in fact constitute the “consultation” required under the bylaws (and were surprised by ICANN’s resolution in January that declared that March 17th would be the date, and (b) there may not enough time between the Brussels meeting and the SF meeting for each of the governments to go back home to their “capitals” to get the appropriate feedback necessary to enable the governments to consider the SF meeting as the official consultation. The governments also want a written response to their scorecard from the ICANN that puts down in writing what the ICANN Board preliminarily determined in Brussels. That should come out in the next couple of days (I have heard).
So, in sum, there was no resolution on that issue, but it is clear that there will be discussions that are taking place.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 5:37 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] RE: REMINDER: Agenda Board meeting with GNSO Council - Sunday March 13, 4pm 5:30 pm
also, can we find out before SF if the actual consultation with GAC is or is not going to take place there? At the end, it sounded like the GAC was not on the same page about that. I'm not clear on whether that was resolved or not.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] RE: REMINDER: Agenda Board meeting with GNSO Council - Sunday March 13, 4pm 5:30 pm From: "Neuman, Jeff" Date: Thu, March 03, 2011 4:22 pm To: Glen de Saint Géry, Council GNSO
I would like to add a topic (if others agree) on new TLDs, but specifically the role of the GNSO community in addressing any new items that come out of the GAC/BD discussions on new gTLDs. More specifically, to the extent that there are any inconsistencies between the policy advice given by the GNSO and what the ICANN Board agrees to with the GAC, how will those matters be handled?
I did attend the Brussels meeting this week and I am not so concerned about the concessions that were already made (other than some implementation questions I have as a registry), but if some of the "2s" given by the ICANN Board become a "1A or 1B" in the next few weeks, I believe we may have a conflict that needs to be worked out.
I hope that made sense to people.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 5:12 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] REMINDER: Agenda Board meeting with GNSO Council - Sunday March 13, 4pm 5:30 pm
REMINDER: These topics should be confirmed no later than by the close of Business tomorrow, 4 March so that they can be transmitted to the Board.
Thank you Kind regards, Glen
Dear Council Members,
In relation with the meeting with the Board on Sunday afternoon, we should send an agenda for this meeting as soon as possible.
In this sense let me remind you that during the last Council meeting it was agreed to propose the topic:
- Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation: context of the Board resolution
Should you have other topics to be included in the agenda, please let Glen and myself know as soon as possible.
Best regards and thanks.
Olga
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
participants (3)
-
Neuman, Jeff -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Tim Ruiz