RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] GAC Durban Communique Issued -- Note references to our WG and our subject matter

["Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

You didn't see it because it's not there (apologies for the slightly 
tongue-in-cheek heading).  Our WG did come up in the GAC/GNSO Session on 
Sunday.  There's no transcript of that meeting (at least not yet).  My basic 
recollection of that meeting was that the GAC acknowledged that we and the GAC 
are on "parallel tracks" and that the GAC would be concerned if the GNSO's 
recommendations differed from the GAC Advice.  Brian Peck (presenting) was 
rather in the hot seat.  It would be great if others who were present could 
amplify or correct my recollections of that meeting.

If anything, the Durban Communique attempts to paint the Board into a corner by 
stating that "the ICANN Board, further to its previous assurances, is prepared 
to fully implement GAC Advice" (on the IGO point at least).

There is potential for a complex and difficult situation and, in the crush of 
events in Durban, it did not get much attention.  Should this WG and/or the 
GNSO be involved in the GAC/NGPC discussions on this matter even if there is no 
formal track for such interaction?  What if we show up after the Board 
implements the GAC Advice and the GNSO then issues conflicting Policy 
Recommendations? What if the Board votes it down?  What if we are not finished 
by the time the first roll-outs are scheduled to occur?

We should consider these, before there is a "policy clash"....

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 11:04 AM
To: GNSO IGO INGO
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] GAC Durban Communique Issued -- Note references to 
our WG and our subject matter


Hi,

I guess I need to reread it, while I recall them discussing the subject, I do 
not remember the GAC acknowledging the existence of the WG.

But I read it quickly, so perhaps I missed that part where they ack our group's 
work, indicate a willingness to work with us and give at least some small 
indication of respecting the fact that we working hard (some of you harder than 
the rest of us) on the problem, trying to find a solution that is consistent 
with international law, Internet openness and the ICANN bottom-up decision 
processes.

Apologies for missing the WG meeting in Durban, ATRT2 filled my dance card.

avri

On 18 Jul 2013, at 11:51, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:

> 
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-18jul13-en.htm
>  
> Gregory S. Shatan
> Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group IP | Technology | Media 
> ReedSmithLLP The business of relationships
> 599 Lexington Avenue
> New York, NY 10022
> 212.549.0275 | Phone
> 917.816.6428 | Mobile
> 212.521.5450 | Fax
> gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.reedsmith.com
>  
> 
>  
> * * *
> 
> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may 
> well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on 
> notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then 
> delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any 
> purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your 
> cooperation.
> 
> * * *
> 
> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you 
> that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice 
> contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended 
> or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding 
> penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local 
> provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any 
> tax-related matters addressed herein.
> 
> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
> 
> 
> 
>