<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document
- To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document
- From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 09:32:22 +0000
To echo what Amr said, as as understand it at this stage the GNSO Council is
looking into a way to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on which issues in
the GAC Communique it considers within its remit or already dealt with in
existing policy activities. Eventually, if this feedback would become more
formalised, the Council could decide to use a GNSO Input Process to develop and
adopt this feedback. Furthermore, if issues are identified that would require
further work, a PDP, GGP or EPDP could be applicable depending on the issue at
stake, but again, that would need to be decided on a case by case basis.
Best regards,
Marika
From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday 2 April 2015 01:28
To: "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>"
<gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document
Hi,
My personal impression is that the the Council’s approach so far on providing
feedback on GAC communiqués has been more about the GNSO Council simply
communicating to the ICANN Board (and GAC) where the GNSO stands on any given
Advice item — how it has been, or is being, dealt with. It is more of a
discussion on a Council process to address GAC Advice on GNSO-related work,
rather than a GNSO process. The processes this WG is recommending are initiated
following a request to the GNSO to do so. The process being discussed by the
Council is initiated following GAC Advice to the Board, not the GNSO. This
template currently being envisioned as a tool to that end may be helpful in
understanding this a little more:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-24feb15-en.pdf
However, none of that is to say that a result of one of these templates from
the GNSO Council to the ICANN Board (and cc’d to the GAC) could not result in
either the Board or the GAC requesting that the GNSO initiate a process to
explore the issue at hand. That could very likely be a possibility, and one of
the processes being developed here could come in handy in a situation like
this. I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest that only one of the processes would
be suitable. I guess it would depend on what questions the GNSO is trying to
answer.
In any case, I would be happy, in my capacity as one of the Council liaisons to
this WG, to relay any message the WG Chairs or members would like to have
communicated to the Council on this matter.
Thanks.
Amr
On Apr 2, 2015, at 12:32 AM, Greg Shatan
<gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
It might be an interesting exercise to discuss these mechanisms specifically
with the Council, given that these are being created for the Council to use, in
a sense. I think we also anticipate that the Council would use one of these
mechanism for any sort of GNSO policy utterance, unless it was wholly unsuited
to the purpose. Our work would be a waste if we created these mechanisms and
the Council went on its merry way making up ad hoc response processes, while
neglecting our creations like a set of gift golf clubs in the closet.
Greg
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne
<AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Thanks Mary. As far as I know, although Council is aware of our work, there
has been no specific discussion of the possibility of reacting to GAC
communiques within the suggested framework of using these tools.
Thank you,
Anne
<image001.gif>
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |
One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
(T) 520.629.4428<tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725<tel:520.879.4725>
AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> |
www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 11:38 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez'
Cc: Marika Konings;
gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document
Hello everyone – just to note that the GNSO Council has been discussing a
possible approach for the provision of GNSO feedback pertaining to issues that
may be raised or impacted by points made in GAC Communiques. Note that, since
the GAC provides its advice via Communique directly to the Board, the Council’s
discussions have largely centered on developing a structured method of
providing GNSO input to the Board as well.
It may be that the GIP could be an appropriate mechanism for some items in the
future, but we thought this WG might like to know that the Council is also
discussing this specific topic (while also aware of the recommendations our
group is making).
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204892>
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 14:29
To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>>,
'Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez' <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>,
"gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>"
<gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document
Thanks for the good feedback Anne. The clarification on the GAC communiques
makes sense.
Chuck
From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 2:08 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez'
Cc: Marika Konings;
gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document
Hi Chuck,
I would defer to Amr on the question of the proposed change in language about
GNSO challenges to implementation measures. We should also see what Alan,
Cheryl, Carlos, and others have to say, however.
Regarding reaction to GAC communiques, I was not suggesting that one of the new
processes be deployed to respond. I was suggesting that when the GAC
identifies implementation issues in its communique, the GNSO should determine
on an issue-by-issue basis ( and advise the Board in writing) whether it can
treat the GAC concerns best by
1. Not responding or responding that the issue was already treated thoroughly
in a PDP.
2. Responding that IRT and staff should deal with the issue
3. Initiating a GIP
4. Initiating a GGP or
5. Initiating an EPDP.
I just think it would be very helpful for GNSO to put each of the GAC issues in
one of these “buckets” because very often it is a GAC communique that triggers
the need for issue resolution – and very often there is time pressure on the
issue for one reason or another.
Thank you,
Anne
<image001.gif>
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |
One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
(T) 520.629.4428<tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725<tel:520.879.4725>
AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> |
www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 4:44 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez'
Cc: Marika Konings;
gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document
Thanks very much for the very thoughtful comments. Please see my responses
below.
Chuck
From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:14 PM
To: 'Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez'; Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Marika Konings;
gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document
Carlos and Chuck,
I have been following this thread to some degree and wanted to make some
comments before tomorrow’s call:
1. I do not think that the WG proposals expand GNSO “discretionary powers”
in any way. As I understand it, we are simply providing more standardized
mechanisms for providing GNSO input and policy-making/implantation processes
so that the processes that get followed are not so “ad hoc” (as were those that
we studied at the beginning of our work). In my view, increasing the
standardization of the processes will lead to more trust in the community. In
other words, these processes themselves create “checks and balances” in the
system (per Carlos’ comment) because it is assumed that one of the three
standard processes will in fact fit the changed circumstances or need to
address issues during the implementation phase. As we all know, some of these
“changed circumstances” arise due to late-breaking facts (e.g. name collision)
or to late-breaking advice (e.g. in the case of the GAC.) Our assumption must
be that these things will occur and we need to be prepared to address them in a
systematic fashion as they arise.
[Chuck Gomes] Makes sense to me but I would be surprised (and pleased) if the
one of the three processes covered all changed circumstances.
2. Per my comments on the last call, I still think the WG should not
continue to pretend that only the GNSO makes policy. One need only look at
issues like GAC Safeguards, IGO/NGO, and two letter registrations at the second
level to develop a full appreciation of how policy really works in ICANN. GNSO
is the primary policy-making body but the policy GNSO makes is a matter of
recommendations. If this were not so, there would not be a provision in the
By-Laws which states that there is a Board voting threshold for acting against
a GNSO policy recommendation. We are not going to change this through the
efforts of our WG because we cannot stop the special position of GAC advice
under the By-Laws or stop the fact that governments legislate and SOs and
Committees other than the GAC do not make binding laws. Then there is the fact
that certain groups, e.g. ALAC, do not have a vote on the GNSO, but certainly
have the ability to influence policy and make policy recommendations directly
to the Board (e.g. with respect to a letter to the Board recommending
“freezing” certain gTLDs that carry higher consumer risk.) Either the WG is
recommending processes in which the entire community can participate or it is
acting in a GNSO “vacuum”. I had thought the intent of our WG was to supply
work that would be helpful to the entire community. (Thus, I do not like the
suggested RySG proposed change in principles which states that the GNSO
reserves the right to challenge implementation, rather than the principle that
the community reserves the right to challenge implementation. Based on the new
standardized procedures we are recommending, any other body within ICANN should
be able to bring an issue to the GNSO in order to initiate a challenge. It
would be a great result if the GAC ultimately decided to pursue one of its
issues through a GNSO process. (They may say I’m a dreamer.)
[Chuck Gomes] Did you see the compromise language I proposed on the RySG
recommendation? I didn’t test it with the RySG but I think it would accomplish
what was intended in the suggested change. The RySG did not intend the change
from ‘community’ to ‘GNSO’ to mean that community members outside of the GNSO
could not contribute but rather to reflect the fact that the GNSO is
responsible for gTLD policy work and hence should be responsible for
challenging any implementation steps that it believes is beyond what was
intended in the policy. That said, I am not prepared to fight hard for the
change.
3. I agree that “separation of powers” is one reason the WG was formed.
The community reacted to the fact that it was unwilling to let the ICANN Board
and staff determine implementation issues that might raise policy
considerations. Then the WG determined that if there are issues during
implementation, what is most important is NOT how the issue is characterized,
but rather, does ICANN itself have efficient means of dealing with issues as
they arise? This is the underlying logic for the three mechanisms that are
being proposed.
[Chuck Gomes] If separation of powers means that policy development power is
separated from policy implementation power, then I don’t agree. The GNSO is
responsible for developing policy recommendations and for ensuring that those
recommendations are implemented appropriately. I don’t think that that
responsibility should be delegated to staff without GNSO oversight. I do agree
though that the three processes we have proposed are designed to provide ways
of dealing with issues as they arise.
4. With respect to working out issues that arise during implementation
with other bodies within ICANN that influence policy enacted by the ICANN
Board, the need for greater coordination has certainly been recognized. For
example, Mason is now the GAC liaison and there is a trial program in place for
involving the GAC early on in the PDP Issue Scoping phase (see notes from March
19 GNSO Council meeting). Our WG should also be looking at how best to involve
the GAC (and other non-GNSO voting bodies) in the three new processes that are
being recommended. For example, right now the GNSO is developing a “template”
for response to the Singapore GAC communique. I am watching this and saying to
myself – this is EXACTLY why we need the standardized processes we have been
working on. To my mind, in the future, the GNSO should be using the GIP or the
GGP or the EPDP to respond to the GAC Communiques and advising the Board which
of these processes should be used with respect to each issue raised by the GAC
communique.
[Chuck Gomes] In my opinion, the GIP could be a good tool for this. It is less
clear that the GGP would work very well and I definitely do not think that the
EPDP would fit. Both would probably take too long and the Council needs to
respond to the GAC in a timely manner. And I don’t think the EPDP restrictions
would be applicable in most cases of GAC communiques, but I would be happy to
be proven wrong.
I look forward to our continuing discussions and like all of you, am hopeful
that these recommendations can actually make the ICANN policy AND
implementation process function more smoothly, thereby increasing trust in the
DNS both inside and outside the community.
Anne
<image001.gif>
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |
One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
(T) 520.629.4428<tel:520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725<tel:520.879.4725>
AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> |
www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 1:27 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Marika Konings;
gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document
Dear Chuck,
sorry but i was away from my PC this morning and could not go back to the
GGP/GIP/EPDP definitions. My answer to your last question is basically yes:
* There should a clearer argument why this requests go back to the original
source, and not to higher (appellate?) instance, and
* Why it differs from the review a redress path (is it for speed? cost?
else?) that is being thoroughly reviewed somewhere else right now
* There should be a minimum threshold of the arguments for the request,
explaining why is there need for the clarification, and not just another run at
trying to change decisions in retrospect. And it should come from affected
parties directly.
* The threshold should increase from GGP to GIP, and even more to EPDP. I’m
afraid there will be more controversy with the last one.
* Are the groups proposed to deal with all this GGP/GIP/EPDP work be
sustainable over time, representative of the community, or do they risk to be
captured by other parts of the system, so the can delegate their responsibility?
* There should also be a recognition that the world became much more
complex, with the jump form 30 to a 1’000 Domain Names, and that the GNSO is
not going to be the solving all issues that will arise in the future,
PARTICULARLY if the GDD or the Compliance functions have NOT done there work in
a proper manner. And don’t get me wrong here, the separation of power i’m
talking about is “horizontal” between the different steps in the policy to
contract to business process
* If there is a (what I would call a ) “vertical" problem between GNSO and
Board as you mention, then a pdp will not solve it
To put it in a nutshell, my impression is that we need a clearer and compelling
argument ready to the question that will certainly pop up at some point: If the
GNSO did his work right in the first place, why do we need this new stuff???
And here the length of the document does not cover lack of the background you
know so well, but newbies like me with just 5 years in the backbench don’t
fully understand. And you are right on another thing: I didn’t like the survey
questionnaire. Just by agreeing to all individual elements, can we
automatically can assume the whole effort is on solid ground. Economists get
burned easily by marginal analysis that looks only at the cost of the last unit
produced.
Thank you very much
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
_____________________
email: crg@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Skype: carlos.raulg
+506 8335 2487<tel:%2B506%208335%202487> (cel)
+506 4000 2000<tel:%2B506%204000%202000> (home)
+506 2290 3678<tel:%2B506%202290%203678> (fax)
_____________________
Apartado 1571-1000
San Jose, COSTA RICA
On Mar 30, 2015, at 1:19 PM, Gomes, Chuck
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Am I correct Carlos that in referring to the mechanisms you mean the GNSO
Guidance Process (GGP), GNSO Input Process (GIP) and the Expedited PDP (EPDP)?
If so, the descriptions of each of those processes explains who can initiate
them. Do you think that more information is needed? If so, specific
suggestions would be helpful.
If I understand correctly, I agree with you that requests for initiation of one
the three processes should be accompanied with a strong case. That would then
allow the GNSO Council to make the best decision possible as to whether or not
to initiate one of them. Of course, several of the questions we asked in the
request for comments survey relate to that.
Chuck
From: Carlos Raúl G. [mailto:crg@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 12:12 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Marika Konings;
gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176<tel:%2B506%208837%207176> (New Number)
Enviado desde mi iPhone
El mar 30, 2015, a las 9:49, Gomes, Chuck
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> escribió:
Carlos,
I just finished listening to the recording and found it very helpful. Thank
you for your comments in the meeting and below. Please see my responses
inserted below.
Chuck
From: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez [mailto:crg@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 11:02 AM
To: Marika Konings
Cc: Gomes, Chuck;
gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document
Importance: High
Dear Chuck
let me summarize my worries in a few sentences, based on the comments you will
hear in the recording. While the new mechanisms look very useful and elegant in
print, I worry about the checks and balances in so far as "who triggers them
and why". Particularly the third one worries me a lot.
I come from a very old school of "separation of powers", where one entity
develops policy, another separate one executes it, and if there is trouble they
both can go to a third entity to solve their differences. The recent letter of
Senators Thune and Rubio seems to come from this very same school of thought,
as they ask for clear organisational and or structural separations of functions.
[Chuck Gomes] In the new TLD program implementation, the position of extreme
separation of powers that the Board and staff took cause some serious problems.
Staff and the Board took the position that if an issue was implementation, then
they could essentially take care of it on their own and didn’t need to involve
the GNSO. That was a primary reason for the creation of the P&I WG.
Separation of powers is always good if there is an effective independent review
and redress mechanism for the Board decision of approving the policy in the
first place. Agree it does not seem to be the case today.
Since the gTLD came into full swing, I could positively see that some kind of
similar division of powers evolving within ICANN> a separate Division *GDD* was
created to deal with (and hopefully be responsible) of the new contracts and
collecting monies, as well as an enforced separate group looking at the
compliance of those contracts, just to avoid any conflict of interest in the
GDD with their clients.
For that reason I believe we should be very careful that the mechanisms
proposed are used only when there are proven problems downstream, i.e. mainly
with the GDD and or compliance functions and not to everybody for every
possible argument.
[Chuck Gomes] I don’t think I understand your point here. What mechanisms are
you talking about? The GDD is the body that will be tasked with implementation
so I understand the reference to the GDD but compliance wouldn’t come into play
directly until after a policy is implemented although we might consult with
them in policy and implementation work to obtain their input as needed. What
do you mean “that the mechanisms proposed are used only when there are proven
problems downstream”? The purpose of our principles and recommendations are to
avoid problems in the future not to react to problems.
For that reason I'm only asking for a very clear explanation of the triggers to
the consultation
If the mechanism are used within the GNSO at their discretion, without a well
grounded reason from their execution and compliance point of view, they risk to
become a closed feedback loop, that may put into question the policy
development process that initiated the whole issue.
[Chuck Gomes] Again, I do not understand what you are saying. What mechanisms
are you talking about? What closed feedback loop? One of the main purposes of
the principles and recommendations we are proposing is to ensure that the
policy development process is not compromised.
Sorry I haven't learned by hearth the names of the 3 type s of consultations.
For that reason, my general comments should be seen under my question of "who
or what, and on what ground triggers those elegant mechanisms", so as to avoid
the feeling that the GNSO get additional discretionary powers trough them. I
think this is important in these time of increased awareness of Accountability
and Transparency.
[Chuck Gomes] This also is hard to understand because I don’t know what
mechanisms you are talking about. Also, what do you mean by “get additional
discretionary powers” of the GNSO?
If the policy is out and approved by the Board, the revision should be
triggered outside of the GNSO with ver compelling arguments. I rest my case.
Happy to continue in the next WG session if I can make it.
Cheers
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
_____________________
email: crg@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Skype: carlos.raulg
+506 8335 2487<tel:%2B506%208335%202487> (cel)
+506 4000 2000<tel:%2B506%204000%202000> (home)
+506 2290 3678<tel:%2B506%202290%203678> (fax)
_____________________
Apartado 1571-1000
San Jose, COSTA RICA
On Mar 30, 2015, at 1:21 AM, Marika Konings
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi Chuck,
Please note that Carlos is a member of the Working Group and participated in
the last meeting (including providing further feedback on his comments).
Hopefully he’ll be able to join our next meetings as well to be able to answer
any follow up questions the WG may have.
We’ll fix the template ahead of the next meeting in relation to item 4.18.
Best regards,
Marika
From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Saturday 28 March 2015 22:40
To: "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>"
<gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document
On my flight home from Istanbul, I went through the latest version of the
comment review document. Here are some comments and questions I have.
Who is responsible for performing any action items we identify? Note the
following action items identified to date:
· 3.7 and multiple other items– we need further input from Carlos;
Carlos made a lot of lengthy comments throughout the survey that I think would
best be resolved via a conversation with him and the WG. Let’s talk about
this. Here are the items: 3.7, 4.14, 5.2, 5.11, 5.20, 7.4, 8.4, 13.4, 14.3,
G.1.
· 4.1 & other items – This wasn’t identified in the action column but
rather in the response column. Several of John Poole’s comments related to the
initial error we made in referencing a section of the survey. Did anyone
communicate with him on the fact that the error was corrected?
· 4.4 - This wasn’t identified in the action column but rather in the
response column. We discussed asking the RySG to propose alternative language.
My comments on the items discussed in my absence on 25 March:
· 4.7 – The RySG comment was noted. What do others think about adding
the sentence redlined below?
Principle C.2.c):“Each ofthe principlesin thisdocument mustbeconsideredin
termsof thedegree towhich theyadheretoandfurther theprinciples definedin
ICANN'sCore Valuesasdocumentedin article2of theICANN by--laws
(http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#I).P<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#I)>articular
note should be made tocore value4: “Seekingandsupportingbroad,
informedparticipation reflectingthefunctional,geographic, andcultural
diversityof theInternet atalllevelsof policydevelopment anddecision--making.”
(The WG notes that informed communication depends on effective communication
throughout the community.)
· 4.8 – The WG decided to reject the change suggested by the RySG from
‘community’ to ‘GNSO’ because it was felt that it would narrow the scope to
exclude affected parties outside of the GNSO from participating. I actually
think the RySG change is correct because the GNSO is the policy management
body, not the full community, but I also believe it would be good to deal with
the issue the WG identified. What about the following?
PrincipleD.1.b: “Changesto GNSOimplementation guidanceneedtobeexamined bythe
GNSOCouncil or anotherappropriate entityasdesignatedby theGNSO Councilonwhere
theyfall inthe spectrumofpolicyand implementation.In allcases,
thecommunityGNSOmaintainsthe rightto challengewhether suchupdates
needfurtherreviewfor policyimplications while at the same time recognizing that
all impacted parties in the community should be given the opportunity to
contribute to the GNSO challenge process.”
· 4.14 and later substantial comments by Carlos – As I suggested toward
the beginning of my response, I personally think it might be useful and the
most time effective to schedule a call with Carlos and the WG or some subset of
the WG to have a live discussion of his concerns and possible solutions.
The NCSG makes some substantial suggestions on at least 11 items. Fortunately,
we have some NCSG members in our WG so I think it would be good for us to
discuss those when the NCSG members can be present. Here are the items: 5.4,
5.22, 5.24, 5.31, 7.6, 8.6, 9.6, 11.6, 13.6, 14.5, G.4.
Likewise, the ALAC makes some substantial suggestions on at least 4 items.
Fortunately, we have some ALAC members in our WG so I think it would be good
for us to discuss those when the ALAC members can be present. Here are the
items: 5.5/5.6, 5.15, 5.33, G6.
And the IPC also makes some substantial suggestions on at least 6items.
Fortunately, we have some IPC members in our WG so I think it would be good for
us to discuss those when the IPC members can be present. Here are the items:
7.5, 9.5, 10.5, 12.5, 14.4, G.3.
Marika & I talked briefly in Istanbul. We have not made as much progress on
going through the public comments as we had hoped and may be in jeopardy of
missing our target dates. She suggested that we could get some volunteers (or
small groups of volunteers) to draft possible responses for subsets of the
items and then present those to the full WG. Of course we would need
volunteers for that to work. How many of you would be willing to do this? In
the cases of the comments from the ALAC, IPC and NCSG, we would need to pair WG
members from those respective groups with some who are not from those groups.
Please respond to this email if you are willing to contribute in this way.
Another option could be to lengthen our calls from 60 minutes to 90 minutes;
please respond if you could or could not do that.
Marika/Mary – Note that we ended up with a sea pair of duplicate items: all of
4.18 appears to be included in 4.19. I suggest that we delete 4.18 and leave
4.19. The fact that this only happened once is pretty remarkable considering
how much manual entry had to be done.
Chuck
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that
is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure
under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender
immediately and delete this message immediately.”
________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message
or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender.
The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be
privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the
intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message
or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender.
The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be
privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the
intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message
or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender.
The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be
privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the
intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
--
Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab
Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet
666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621
Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022
Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428
gsshatan@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gsshatan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>
www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|