Re: [alac] Council call

[Sebastián Ricciardi <sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Thomas remarks about GAC´s position on the WIPO II issue are very
interesting.

Whoever might be the one that thinks that the council shouldn´t be involved
in the process, it became obvious that the GAC put it´s own interests above
the legitimacy of the whole Domain Name System. I would like, therefore, to
present you the following statement (changes, opinions and advices are
welcome, of course) for your endorsment.

"Given the publication of the WIPO II Working Group Report, and having
noticed certain concerns within the ICANN community regarding the proper
policy development process, and the participation of the GNSO in it, the
ALAC wishes to stress once again the utmost importance of  the role that the
GNSO has in the PDP.
We believe (as we stated before, see
http://alac.icann.org/correspondence/comment-wipo-13may03.htm) that it would
be inappropriate for ICANN to assume the role of an international
legislator, and to try to establish such new law through its contracts and
policy processes. For this reason, any policy-making processes which are
based upon WIPO's recommendations in the areas of the protection of IGOs'
and countries' names must pay close attention to staying within the confines
of supporting existing, internationally uniform law.
That desn´t deny in any way the required participation of the GNSO in the
matter, given an eventual Board resolution on the implementation of the WIPO
II Report. In fact, any implementation of these matters will require a
proper Policy Development Process, and the role of the GNSO in it is clearly
stated in ICANN´s Bylaws."

Please excuse me if you find some grammar mistakes or anything confuse here.

Regards,

Sebastian



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <alac@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 5:27 PM
Subject: [alac] Council call


> Hello,
>
> here are some short notes from the Council call tonight:
>
> * Bruce Tonkin re-elected as GNSO chair for another 12 months.
>
> * Council concerned re WIPO II.  ICANN staff has a response from
>   WIPO to the WIPO II group's report (this was the group chaired by
>   Jonathan Cohen where we were represented by Wendy and Sebastian;
>   the report hasn't been published).  That report is supposed to be
>   published by ICANN today.  GNSO wants to be kept in the loop on
>   whatever decision may be suggested to the Board in Cape Town.  I
>   was hearing a slightly aggressive remark from a GAC rep who
>   suggested that it might be inappropriate for Council to take a
>   position on a matter of international law.
>
> * On registry changes (as I'll call it briefly), ICANN staff has
>   reviewed the initial report, and will come back to Council with
>   comments.
>
> * Hiring of staff support for the GNSO Council.  Two shortlists of
>   10 people; interviews; shorten list for one of the roles to 4-5
>   people in the next couple of days.  Interviews next week; other
>   role may have to wait until after Cape Town.  Try to have people
>   on staff by 1/05.
>
> * GNSO Review.  Patrick Sharry (the consultant retained by ICANN)
>   briefly described the process he is going through for the review;
>   he's interviewing about 20 people.
>
> * Council wants to look at ICANN's strategic plan in Cape Town.
>
> * Updates on WHOIS Task Force 1-2:  Not much progress on tiered
>   access; drafts on conflict between law and RAA, "conspicuous
>   notice."
>
> * Update on Task Force 3:  Some remarks from Barbara Roseman and
>   myself on yesterday's call, identifying fundamental issues that
>   the group needs to resolve before it's able to do anything.
>
>   (Barbara: Who bears cost of measures wished by IP constituency?
>   Registrars or IPC?  I: Improving accuracy on massive scale vs
>   treating bad actors; side effects of proposed policies on
>   stability of domain name registrations.)
>
>   There will be a meeting of Council and TF3 members / constituency
>   reps in Cape Town; probably on Wed 1 Dec.  (The opening ceremony
>   has apparently been renamed and moved to Thursday.)  It would be
>   advisable if someone from this group could participate.
>
> Regards,
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler · Personal soap box at <http://log.does-not-exist.org/>.
>