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

[Elizabeth Finberg <efinberg@xxxxxxx>]

+1
Elizabeth S. Finberg
Assistant General Counsel
.ORG, The Public Interest Registry
Main: +1 703 889-5778  | Direct: + 1 703-889-5772 |
 
Find us on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pir.org>  |  .ORG Blog
<http://blog.pir.org/> | Flickr <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> | YouTube
<http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> | Twitter <http://twitter.com/ORGBuzz> |




Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public
Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then
delete.







On 7/22/13 9:53 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>I think there are reasonable chances that there may be 'policy clash'.
>Whereas we should consider GAC advice in our work, all we can do is try
>to come up with recommendations that have at least strong support, submit
>those to the Council and broader GNSO community.
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S.
>Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 11:35 AM
>To: GNSO IGO INGO
>Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] GAC Durban Communique Issued -- Note
>references to our WG and our subject matter
>
>
>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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>
>
>