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

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,
as you know, I have not been in Durban and as I have been away from my desk for 
a few days, I still need to catch up with new developments. 

A few observations:

- While it would not be safisfying to work in an environment where a policy 
clash or parallel efforts might occur, I am not sure whether it is our role to 
try to resolve this. As Chuck pointed out, we should come up with 
recommendations and present them to the Community and Council. 

- I am not sure whether it is appropriate for us as a WG to seek clarification 
with the GAC. Rather, this would be a matter for the Council and ultimately for 
the Council Chair to correspond.

- Also, I am not sure we should seek clarification. What outcome do you expect? 
The way I read the Communique leaves some flexibility for our work. Asking for 
clarification might further narrow down the options, which might not be a 
desired outcome. It is very well possible that the language has been drafted to 
be somewhat vague. That practice by the GAC is often used (IMHO exactly not to 
prescribe all details). 

More thoughts and suggestions are welcome.

Thomas

=============
thomas-rickert.tel
+49.228.74.898.0

Am 22.07.2013 um 18:43 schrieb 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
> 
>