RE: [gnso-rn-wg] FW: Draft GAC principles

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The document is not public. I think there is confusion. There was a public
agenda with an attachment. However, the intent was never to make the
principles public. 

 

And the principles have evolved. So, we don't have a current version,
regardless of what might have been published as a GAC agenda for their use,
at that time. 

Why are we making such a big deal of something that with any other group
would be simple. The chair should send a note to the Council chair and ask
for clarification from the GAC on when the principles will be available.
Simple. Professional. Neutral. How we would treat any SO, or Advisory
Committee. 

 

Marilyn

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 11:39 AM
To: Gomes,Chuck
Cc: GNSO RN WG
Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] FW: Draft GAC principles

 

Strange. The document is already public. Regardless, how do we include a
discussion of the issues in the GAC document without quoting or using the
document? Do we just pretend that we pulled the issues out of the air on our
own?  

Tim 

 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] FW: Draft GAC principles
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, March 13, 2007 10:21 am
To: "GNSO RN WG" <gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>

Regarding use of the draft GAC document regarding new gTLDs, please read
the following messages from Denise Michel, ICANN's Vice President,
Policy Development. 

Please note that GAC rules forbid the public posting of any draft GAC
document.  Therefore, the draft GAC document regarding the introduction
of new gTLDs must not be included in any of the RN-WG subgroup reports
or in the full WG report.  Please delete the draft GAC report if it is
included in your subgroup report. In cases where there is currently
reference to the draft GAC report, please reword any reference to the
draft GAC report and instead do something like the following as
appropriate: "refer to concerns that have been expressed by some
governments."

If you have any questions on this, please feel free to ask, but I would
like to strongly suggest that we don't spend time on further debate of
this issue.  Whether you agree or disagree with the GAC's rule, if we
expect to be able to work constructively with the GAC, I believe it is
critical that we respect their rules.  I recognize that several of you
disagree with this, but I encourage you to deal with your concerns in
this regard in other forums rather than the RN-WG.

I do want to clarify though that I personally do not believe that this
should limit our discussion of issues that are included in the draft GAC
report to the extent that those issues are relevant to our SoW regarding
reserved names.  Our report would not be complete if we left out issues
that we know exist.


Chuck Gomes

"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 

-----Original Message-----
From: Denise Michel [mailto:denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:36 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Timothy Denton
Subject: Re: Draft GAC principles

I understand the use/posting of draft GAC principles may be an issue for
the RN WG (or one of its subgroups).  Feel free to share the following
email I sent to the GAC Chair regarding this, or just provide WG members
with guidance on the appropriate treatment of GAC draft text.

Thanks.
Denise

Denise Michel
Vice President, Policy Development
ICANN   www.icann.org
denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx
+32-2-234-7876 office
+1-408-429-3072 mobile
+32-2-234-7848 fax


Denise Michel wrote:
> Suzanne Sene brought to my attention that the GAC's draft public 
> policy principles for new TLDs were included in the annex of a working

> draft of the GNSO's new TLD report, which was posted on one of the 
> GNSO's web pages used for working documents.
> 
> I apologize for this error.  The GAC draft text, which had been 
> included in "Annex Three" of the draft report, has been deleted (see 
> <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/GNSO-PDP-Dec05-FR13-FEB07.htm>).
> 
> To ensure that draft GAC text is not publicly posted by ICANN Policy 
> staff, I have informed staff of the GAC's rules regarding draft text, 
> and I have instituted measures which will require the receipt of 
> written authorization from the GAC Chair or relevant GAC liaison prior

> to the public posting of any draft GAC text.
> 
> Additionally, it may be useful to provide GNSO members with 
> information on the GAC's operations to help ensure GNSO members don't 
> make similar mistakes.  I believe many GNSO members (as well as 
> members of other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees) 
> remain unaware of GAC's rules and procedures and thus do not have the 
> necessary guidance when given draft GAC text by a GAC member.
> 
> Please let me know if I can provide any further assistance with this.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Denise
> 
> 
> Denise Michel
> Vice President, Policy Development
> ICANN   www.icann.org
> denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx
> +32-2-234-7876 office
> +1-408-429-3072 mobile
> +32-2-234-7848 fax
> 
>