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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.
Alan

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.
> Greg
>
> 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.
> Chuck
>
> 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.
>
> Thomas
>
> =============
> thomas-rickert.tel
> +49.228.74.898.0
>
> 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.
> Chuck
>
> 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.
> Cheers
> Mary
>
> 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