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

["Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I hope you are right.  In my “day job,” I am paid to be pessimistic.  And I’m 
suffering from Seasonal Affective Disorder with all this #@&! snow.

Greg

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 4:00 PM
To: Shatan, Gregory S.; Thomas Rickert
Cc: Mary Wong; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Board resolution on GNSO IGO-INGO PDP 
recommendations

I am not sure it is fair to conclude that they are “putting the GAC advice and 
the GNSO policy recommendations on an equal footing in their consideration”.  I 
am cautiously optimistic that that is not the case and that they simply want 
some time to develop their response to the GAC in case they approve the full 
policy recommendations.  I could be wrong of course.

Chuck

From: Shatan, Gregory S. [mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 2:39 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Thomas Rickert
Cc: Mary Wong; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Board resolution on GNSO IGO-INGO PDP 
recommendations

What concerns me is that they seem to be.  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> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[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<mailto: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]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 3:37 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Mary Wong; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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" 
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>:
Thanks Mary.  So essentially the Board kicked the ball down the road a little 
further.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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

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: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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