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

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

I agree with some of Thomas's points, but I don't agree with where it leaves us.

I don't think we are merely  in an environment where parallel efforts might 
occur.  In fact, parallel efforts are occurring and have been occurring at 
least since 2011 on the issue of IGO, RCRC and IOC protections.  And we can 
continue to let them be parallel, or we can be the first ones to consider how 
they should converge.

 Based on what I saw in Durban, matters relating to IGO protections (and RCRC 
and IOC protections) are coming to a head between the Board and the GAC, and 
discussions are taking place, and the GNSO (through this working group or 
otherwise) Is not involved.  And it is possible, even likely, that the GAC and 
the Board could come to a resolution on these matters while we are still 
working.

I agree that it's probably not the place of this WG to formally reach out to 
the GAC at this point.  But it is something that the GNSO, and the GNSO Council 
as the managers of the policy development process, could consider, with our 
input.

We could continue to work in isolation, without any interaction with the GAC 
other than what happened in Durban and their communiques.  We can let the 
GAC/Board interaction come to its conclusion without any input from us or the 
GNSO, and let the staff create some implementation of the GAC advice.  We can 
then finish our process whenever we do so and issue our final report for public 
comment, and then the GNSO would present the Policy Recommendations to the 
Board and then (assuming it varies from the GAC advice as implemented) stand 
back and watch the fireworks.  And the fireworks will be even more interesting 
if our timeline is too late to dovetail neatly with the new gTLD rollout and 
causes friction there as well.  

Given that we can see the collision coming from miles away, it doesn't seem 
pragmatic to ignore it at this point.  Somebody or some group of people within 
the GNSO should be thinking about the end game now. To me, the "let the chips 
fall where they may" approach seems like a political, and not a practical, 
approach.  If we hand the Board policy recommendations that conflict with the 
GAC Advice after the Advice been implemented, what happens then?  Either the 
Board votes it down, or they backtrack on the GAC Advice to follow the Policy 
recommendations or a very awkward dialogue takes place.  Any of these 
alternatives seems like good political theatre, but I don't think they reflect 
good policy development or management.  Many have accused the GAC of acting in 
isolation, and they're probably right.  But what do we gain by acting in 
isolation?  It doesn't make us look more agile or more pragmatic.

I think it would be more proactive, practical and statesmanlike to raise the 
issue now, and at least see what the stakeholder groups and constituencies 
think and/or what the Council thinks.  I think it would show policy leadership 
to face the issue now, rather than letting a series of potentially unfortunate 
events unfold.

At the very least, we should be fully aware that we are rejecting the GAC 
Advice (to the extent we do so).  We have every right to do so, and if that is  
where we end up, so be it.  But I don't think we should proceed down that path 
without considering the results of such a position and why we are recommending 
that the Board and staff backtrack from their implementation of the GAC advice 
in favor of the GNSO policy recommendation.  Our policy recommendation would be 
incomplete if it failed to acknowledge the GAC advice -- just as the GAC advice 
is incomplete by failing to acknowledge our Working Group.

Greg






-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 4:50 PM
To: Elizabeth Finberg
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Shatan, Gregory S.; GNSO IGO INGO
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] GAC Durban Communique Issued -- Note references to 
our WG and our subject matter

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.h
>>> tm
>>> 
>>> 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
> 
>