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

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

I essentially agree with Chuck.  While I think the "diplomatic" contact should 
be between Jonathan and Heather, the substantive interactions should be between 
this WG and the GAC leads on this subject.

Greg
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Device


----- Original Message -----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 07:50 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Elizabeth Finberg <efinberg@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Shatan, Gregory S.; GNSO IGO INGO <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] GAC Durban Communique Issued  -- Note references 
to our WG and our subject matter

It looks like I may be alone in my opinion, but I disagree with this thinking:  
" 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."  Here are some of my reasons:

1.  Avoiding direct communication with the GAC does not contribute anything to 
our common goal of wanting the GAC to get involved earlier.

2. Deferring that action to the Council would delay communication with the GAC 
considerably, possibly to a time when it may be too late.

3. According to the Bylaws and GAC views, the GAC doesn't have any more 
responsibility to interact with the Council than it does with a WG.

4. If we via Thomas send some clearly worded questions to the GAC to seek 
clarification in their advice, they do not have to respond, but if they do we 
are better off by trying to engage with them.

5. If the GAC cannot provide any clarity to us as a WG for whatever reasons, it 
is unlikely that they would not be able to do so for the Council either.

6. The GAC has made it pretty clear in recent meetings that they want to figure 
out ways to get involved earlier so why not give them this opportunity and let 
them decide if they can respond in some way.

7. If Thomas sends a brief and respectful request for clarification to Heather 
and she is not able to provide any clarification, what have we lost?  What are 
we afraid of?

8. The WG is responsibility for developing policy, not the Council.  And to do 
our work, we need input from all stakeholders including the GAC.

9. If any policy recommendations come out of our WG, that needs to happen in 
fairly short order, or we will miss our chance; time is not on our side.

Chuck



-----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
> 
>