RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document

["J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think Anne is making some solid points here.

j. scott evans - associate general counsel - adobe - 408.536.5336 - 
jscottevans@xxxxxxxxxxx

From: AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx
To: aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 01:34:06 +0000









Amr et al,
Perhaps what I am saying is that the WG could recommend that in responding to 
GAC Communiques to the Board and using the tool that Amr showed us, the Council
 could identify one of the three processes as an appropriate method of 
addressing each of the issues e.g. a notation such as “GNSO Council to address 
via GIP, or “to address via GGP” or “to address via EPDP” or GNSO Council 
considers a full PDP is required
 to address this issue” or “GNSO Council believes this issue was already 
addressed via PDP – see Final Report of X Working Group Paragraph Y”. 

 
The point here is the same that Greg is making.    The GAC Communique is 
exactly the type of communication that should trigger consideration of these 
new processes
 by the GNSO and so it would indeed be handy for the Council to consider this 
possibility in relation to the form being developed for response to GAC 
Communiques. 

 
The suggestion was definitely not that ONE of the new processes would be 
suitable for response to the GAC. The suggestion was rather that the GNSO 
Council could,
 in responding to the GAC Communique that is sent to the Board, state that 
intends to use one of the new tools to foster GNSO Input (GIP) or Guidance 
(GGP) or Policy Development (EPDP) to respond to the GAC’s advice.  These three 
options are of course NOT exclusive
 since Council is free to respond however it may want to respond to GAC 
communiques.  However, we are trying to standardize processes and build trust 
and as Greg notes, it would be a shame if the processes were recommended, 
adopted, and then never actually
 used.
 
I think it is clear that the timeline will not permit use of these processes to 
be listed in a response to the Singapore meeting, but it does seem that they
 could be incorporated down the line and hopefully no later than the Dublin 
communique  (as a goal in terms of time frames.)
Anne

 








Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel




Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |





One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611




(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725




AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx
 | 
www.LRRLaw.com










 







 





 


From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr

Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 4:28 PM

To: 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> 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> 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 | (F) 
520.879.4725




AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx
 | 
www.LRRLaw.com










 





 





 


From: Mary Wong [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




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


Email:
mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx




 




 


From:
<Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 14:29

To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>, 'Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez' 
<crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" 
<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

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 | (F) 
520.879.4725




AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx
 | 
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

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

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 | (F) 
520.879.4725




AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx
 | 
www.LRRLaw.com










 





 





 


From: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

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

Skype: carlos.raulg

+506 8335 2487 (cel)

+506 4000 2000 (home)

+506 2290 3678 (fax)

_____________________

Apartado 1571-1000

San Jose, COSTA RICA


 


 


 


 

 



On Mar 30, 2015, at 1:19 PM, Gomes, Chuck <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

Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document




 







Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez



+506 8837 7176 (New Number)




Enviado desde mi iPhone






El mar 30, 2015, a las 9:49, Gomes, Chuck <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

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

Skype: carlos.raulg

+506 8335 2487 (cel)

+506 4000 2000 (home)

+506 2290 3678 (fax)

_____________________

Apartado 1571-1000



San Jose, COSTA RICA




 




 




 



 


 





On Mar 30, 2015, at 1:21 AM, Marika Konings <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>

Date: Saturday 28 March 2015 22:40

To: "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <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).Particular 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


ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx


www.lawabel.com





 






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.