ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Board resolution on GNSO IGO-INGO PDP recommendations

  • To: "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Gomes, Chuck'" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Board resolution on GNSO IGO-INGO PDP recommendations
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:16:33 -0500

Since the entire issue was triggered by GAC advice (when protection of the RCRC/IOC names was raised), this is pretty much how this came about. As I recall it, the Board reaction during the pre-launch GAC scorecard days was to provide interim protection and refer the issue to the GNSO.


At 14/02/2014 02:38 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:

What concerns me is that they seem to be putting the GAC advice and the GNSO policy recommendations on an equal footing in their consideration. I am not sure that this is what the ICANN By-laws call for, in terms of precedence, thought that may be expedient in terms of dealing with the GAC.

Also, their “back story” for our WG makes it sound like we were commissioned solely to assist the Board in responding to (prior) GAC advice. I have not gone back and looked, and my recollection is dim, but that doesn’t sound quite right to me. However, such a characterization makes it easier for them to view the GNSO policy recommendation in this instance as subservient to the GAC advice, as opposed to being a “free-standing” piece of policy.


From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 2:23 PM
To: Thomas Rickert
Cc: Mary Wong; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Board resolution on GNSO IGO-INGO PDP recommendations

Me too Thomas but I guess it does make sense that they need to figure out how to deal with the differences in our recommendations and GAC advice.


From: Thomas Rickert [<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 3:37 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Mary Wong; <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Board resolution on GNSO IGO-INGO PDP recommendations

Very true. I would just have hoped that the process went a bit quicker.



Am 12.02.2014 um 21:27 schrieb "Gomes, Chuck" <<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: Thanks Mary. So essentially the Board kicked the ball down the road a little further.


From: <mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:27 PM
To: <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Board resolution on GNSO IGO-INGO PDP recommendations

Dear WG members,

The ICANN Board met to consider the GNSO Council's unanimous recommendation to adopt this WG's consensus recommendations on 7 February. Here is the link to the Board's resolution from that meeting: <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-07feb14-en.htm#2.a>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-07feb14-en.htm#2.a

Essentially, the Board acknowledged receipt of the recommendations and asked for more time to consider them. It also directed the NGPC to develop a proposal for the Board's consideration at a subsequent meeting that will take into account both GAC Advice and the GNSO's recommendations. As is customary, the Board has stated a rationale for its resolution, which is included in the link above.


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

* One World. One Internet. *

* * *

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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy