<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [bc-gnso] Excerpts from GAC Chair Heather Dryden on Beijing GAC Advice
- To: sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Excerpts from GAC Chair Heather Dryden on Beijing GAC Advice
- From: Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 11:54:28 -0400
Thanks for the summary Steve. While the message heard by different listeners is
often interpreted to fit their end, I would say that Heather captured very well
the message I was trying to articulate in our Friday call, I.e. The GAC is our
friend in court. Our job is to put some 'meat on the bones' in support of their
openings to move the process forward. Any derogatory commentary will only
alienate our ally.
As requested, I'll get a draft of the language around regulated industries and
possible safeguards to you for our BC response by the start of the week.
Kind regards,
RA
Ron Andruff
www.lifedotsport.com
-------- Original message --------
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bc-gnso] Excerpts from GAC Chair Heather Dryden on Beijing GAC Advice
Some key quotes from GAC Chair's interview (link)
GAC Consensus Advice (where no GAC member objected to the advice) was given
only for .africa and .gcc. Rest of the Beijing advice was not "GAC Consensus"
but it "must be given due consideration"
Safeguard advice was about pre-existing obligations and applicable laws. It
was not to impose new obligations. Raises valid implementation questions.
GAC advice suggests no new global regulatory regime. It's consistent with
ICANN's existing role.
It's preferable to have Safeguards measure in order to allow these new TLDs to
proceed, rather than discussions about objections form GAC or others.
GAC believes there should be good reason to have an exclusive generic TLD. The
community may want discussion about the Public Interest.
Question: Did GAC give new rules at the 11th hour? GAC suggested categories
like this previously but this advice was not taken. So GAC is using the
mechanisms ICANN created. GAC's primary role is to advise on public policy
aspects. We have acted.
Question: What if ICANN Board ignores this GAC Advice? We'd question the
value of governments participating in ICANN. Need to show that GAC is a useful
mechanism. Otherwise why would governments support this model?
Question: what is GAC priority for Durban? The 14 strings for Further
Consideration (1.c) and implementation of GAC advice on Safeguards.
--
Steve DelBianco
From: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, May 10, 2013 11:21 PM
To: "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: GAC Chair Heather Dryden on the Beijing Communiqué and
New gTLD Advice | 10 May 2013 - YouTube
BC members considering the GAC Communique should watch this.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|