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

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,
this is to let you know that I spoke to Jonathan about this earlier this week 
to discuss the various options to proceed based on our discussion. We will 
follow-up on this and I will get back to you on this shortly.

Thanks and have a great weekend,
Thomas


Am 23.07.2013 um 16:01 schrieb "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
>> 
>> 
> 
>