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

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,
This is just to let you know that I have asked Jonathan Robinson, the GNSO 
Council Chair for a call to discuss this matter.

Thanks,
Thomas

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

Am 23.07.2013 um 09:51 schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" 
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> 
> Gregory: 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Wolfgang:
> Thanks Gregory. I fully support your appaaoch. We are moving into troubled 
> waters and the way how we will sail will determine to a certain degree the 
> future role of the GNSO and its council. Yes, we have to be proactive and to 
> propose new levels and forms of dialogue. That is why I raised during our 
> joint meeting with the GAC in Durban the issue of "early GAC engagement" (a 
> promise from the Toronto Communique which weas not fullfilled so far by the 
> GAC). Unfortunately, there was no clear answer from the GAC. They did not 
> e4xplain in Beijing what "early engagement" is and they did it not in Durban 
> The GAC addresses first of all the Board. In the triangle between GAC, Board 
> and GNSO we are in the weak corner. As you have outlined there could be a 
> situation where the GNSO comes with a recommendation which has taken the GAC 
> advice into consideration but comes to another conclusion. Who will overrule 
> whom? One example: As I argued in the WG, the GAC argument that only IOC and 
> RC !
> are proteced in national and international law, is not correct. There are 
> other organisations, which have a similar "double protection", as UNESCO with 
> interntional treaties and more than 160 national UNESCO Commissions and more 
> than 1000 UNESCO Cultural Heritage sites, all regulated in national 
> legislations. And more problems come with the IGOs. For me it is still an 
> open question why to introduce new mechanisms if the existing mechanisms have 
> not yet been tested to identify the gaps and weaknesses of the proposed 
> system (I expect that we will end up with a very small number of 
> controversial cases which can than be handled by the various instruments we 
> have now in the system, but this is - I agree - speculation). Anyhow, the 
> only way forward is a more intense dialogue. Probably we should reach out to 
> like minded GAC members and to find out, how flexible the GAC advice is. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----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
> 
> 
> 
>