AW: [gnso-igo-ingo] why are we doing this?

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, 
 
I share Chuck´s impression that the GNSO Council - regardless of the excellent 
work it is doing - is not seen by a number of players on the "higher level" 
(Staff, Board, GAC) as the key body for policy makling in the G-Space. This is 
very bad and undermines ICANNs multistakeholder model which is based on a 
bottom up and transparent process. ICANN policy is not the result of a deal 
making or arm twisting behind closed doors between GAC and Board with staff 
involvement. 
 
Our effort in Durban, to include more specific procedures for interaction among 
the GNSO, its Council and the Board (and the GAC) into the bylaws, should be 
re-vitalized. The policy vs. implementation story is not over. This could and 
should be an issue on Buenos Aires and we should make clear that so-called 
"parallel processes" (as mention in the joint GNSO Council-GAC meeting) is very 
counterproductive for all sides. And what is with the GAC promise (from 
Toronto) with regard to "early engagement"? Was this just "lip service"?
 
wolfgang   

________________________________

Von: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
Gesendet: Do 19.09.2013 15:36
An: Mary Wong; Avri Doria; jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'GNSO IGO INGO'
Betreff: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] why are we doing this?




Mary,

I was in doubt that they knew about it. But understanding that makes it even 
more surprising that in their communications they have mostly ignored the PDP.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 9:22 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'GNSO IGO INGO'
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] why are we doing this?

Hi Avri, Chuck and everyone,

I certainly can't speak for the NGPC but I can assure you that they know
about the work of this WG; perhaps this discussion further highlights the
importance of getting these recommendations finalized and published as
soon as possible, to enable discussions with Board members, the GAC and
other community participants prior to and in Buenos Aires.

Cheers
Mary

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx

* One World. One Internet. *




-----Original Message-----
From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2013 9:07 AM
To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, "jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx"
<jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 'GNSO IGO INGO' <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] why are we doing this?

>
>I certainly agree that this is 'an insidious trend'.  I was amazed that
>they mostly ignored the GNSO and the WG.  It is almost as if they have
>written the GNSO off.
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 7:40 AM
>To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>Cc: 'GNSO IGO INGO'
>Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] why are we doing this?
>
>
>Hi,
>
>What does it mean for names to be on the reserved list temporarily.  Can
>we not add and remove names from the reserved list at will before any
>PDP?  and there is nothing about this that indicates it is a temporary
>measure.  Even the communications of of the Board indicate that the
>negotiations on Reserved names are between the GAC and the Board - any
>mention of the PDP process that is nearly complete?
>
>The list of names, e.g, includes acronyms, but the nearly complete PDP
>indicates that acronyms are not to be supported.  Was this taken in
>account?
>
>And finally, assuming we acept this, which is really something we have no
>choice in, are they now going to take the liberty of removing and
>adjusting the Reserved names list whenever they, and the GAC, decide it
>is necessary without bothering with any of the processes that are the
>responsibility of the GNSO and its council?  Accepting such actions
>without formal protest by this WG and especially by the GNSO Council is
>acquiescence to the curtailment of GNSO's role at ICANN.
>
>I feel this is an insidious trend that must be protested.  It can't be
>allowed to go on with those of us working hard for compromise sitting
>meekly by.
>
>avri
>
>
>On 19 Sep 2013, at 07:18, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Avri,
>>
>> Please explain more?
>>
>> As I understand it, these names are on the reserved list pending the
>> outcome of the policy process.
>>
>> You may view the likelihood of these coming off the reserved list as
>> unlikely regardless of the PDP process.  Is that your concern?
>>
>> Also, what, if anything, was added to the list of temporary
>> protections most recently?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
>> Sent: 19 September 2013 04:58
>> To: GNSO IGO INGO (gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx)
>> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] why are we doing this?
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Given the complete disregard the Board and Sr Staff have for GNSO PRP
>> processes as demonstrated in:
>>
>> http://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/reserved-names/Reser
>> vedNam
>> es.xml
>>
>> Can somebody explain why we are bothering to figure out the minutia of
>> our consensus levels.
>>
>> Does it really matter?
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>