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

[Elizabeth Finberg <efinberg@xxxxxxx>]

And I.
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 5:31 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>As do I.
>
>Alan
>
>At 22/07/2013 05:00 PM, David W. Maher wrote:
>
>>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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>