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

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I share many of the concerns on this topic and would very much like to be
crystal clear on the exact facts / specifics in this instance.

More generally, we did lose a little momentum on GAC / GNSO engagement but
that was as much about some logistics issues e.g. bandwidth and who was /
wasn't in Durban.
Currently, there seems to be an on-going good faith attempt to keep this
going and develop the idea (of constructive, innovative GAC / NSO
engagement).
So, I share your enthusiasm for this aspect Wolfgang.


Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 19 September 2013 15:36
To: Gomes, Chuck; Mary Wong; Avri Doria; jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: GNSO IGO INGO
Subject: AW: [gnso-igo-ingo] why are we doing this?

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/Rese
>> r
>> vedNam
>> es.xml
>>
>> Can somebody explain why we are bothering to figure out the minutia 
>> of our consensus levels.
>>
>> Does it really matter?
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>