Dear Bruce, Thanks for sharing the communique. While it is good news that GAC has identified the priority areas as GNSO would see, it, I am quite confused as to the role 'GNSO' would have in its policy advise capacity. On this note I agree on the points raised by Avri and *kindly request for clarification* on two of the following items: 1-Where is GNSO's role at the GAC level. 2-Concurrently, looking at the slides of Tina Dam PAC presentation to BOARD/Public forum regarding IDNs, it suggests the formation of the working group, and the three ccNSOs to join GNSO PDP. I would *highly suggest* that GNSO has a larger involvement than proposed by the statement below, recognizing that public policy principles are also a mandate we need to be concerned with.

"Beyond this it was agreed that the working group should as a longer term issue focus on the role of the GAC vis-à-vis ICANN and the ICANN Board and it should lead to the creation of a better environment that facilitates the development and application of *public policy principles."*

Kind regards, Sophia On 03/04/06, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

I also think this is important.

2 of the things I think we need understand as a council.

- In the Communique they use the term 'enhanced cooperation'.

...

In order to achieve the objectives of enhanced cooperation within the ICANN context

These are key words from the WSIS Tunis Agenda. Specifically:

69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day- to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues.

I am curious whether the words are being used in that context. I tend to expect so.

- In the light of that, I go back to the word 'counterpart' used by the GAC GSNO WG chair at the beginning of the joint meetings between the council and GAC GNSO WG in referring to the relationship between the GAC GSNO WG and the GNSO Council. I am curious to what this word signifies and on to what extent parity as a 'counterpart' on GNSO policy issues is expected.

This concerns me somewhat and I hope that the council will have visibility, perhaps even a liaison relationship, into the discussions of the joint board/GACC WG.

thanks a.

On 4 apr 2006, at 04.13, Marilyn Cade wrote:

...

I thought this was quite helpful for us as Council to discuss how we will organize the ongoing interaction and dialogue with the GAC.

Marilyn

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 8:55 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] GAC /ICANN Board cooperation

Hello All,

Below is an extract from the GAC Communique regarding cooperation between GAC and ICANN Board, and the priority issues. Note that new gTLDs, IDNs, and WHOIS are all listed as priority issues.

Regards, Bruce Tonkin

...

From the GAC Communiqué: http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac24com.pdf

- GAC-ICANN Board cooperation

The GAC welcomed the inaugural meeting of the Joint Working Group of the GAC and the ICANN Board. The Joint Working Group will be led by Alejandro Pisanty on behalf of the ICANN Board and Janis Karklins (Latvia) on behalf of the GAC. It was acknowledged that in the immediate term (from Wellington to Marrakesh), it would be important to improve the timeliness and efficiency of communications between the GAC and the ICANN Board.

In order to achieve the objectives of enhanced cooperation within the ICANN context, the GAC acknowledges that there is a need for the GAC to consider changes in its working methods to enable it to interact more routinely with the ICANN Board and the community.

Beyond this it was agreed that the working group should as a longer term issue focus on the role of the GAC vis-à-vis ICANN and the ICANN Board and it should lead to the creation of a better environment that facilitates the development and application of public policy principles.

In particular, the GAC has identified the following issues as key priority areas for early engagement, namely:

a) ccTLDs,

b) IDNs,

c) IPv6 and IP addressing resource allocation,

d) Development and creation of policies on gTLDs, and

e) WhoIS.