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

["David W. Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx>]

Thomas:
 I agree with your observations.
David 
David W. Maher
Senior Vice President ­ Law & Policy
Public Interest Registry
312 375 4849 




On 7/22/13 3:50 PM, "Thomas Rickert" <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>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
>> 
>> 
>
>