-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] FW: Letter from Cherine Chalaby
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:32:53 -0400
From: Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
To: GNSO Council List <[log in to unmask]>
CC: Jonathan Robinson <[log in to unmask]>
Hi,
I tend to support this analysis.
I think they are trying to do the right thing in terms of reconciling
differences between policy recommendations, advice and implementation
issues by referencing our own processes.
avri
On 17-Jun-14 13:15, Thomas Rickert wrote:
> All,
> I would like to offer a few thoughts for your consideration:
>
> 1. Unlike in the meeting in Singapore, the Board / NGPC is not asking us
> to change GNSO policy recommendation by way of negotiation. Some
> rightfully pointed out that the policy recommendations cannot be changed
> informally by way of negotiations. The letter we received does not
> suggest that, but it refers to the existing procedure to revisit and
> potentially modify GNSO policy recommendation.
>
> 2. The NGPC's initiative to contact the parties involved is the right
> way. It is my view that it is the Board's / NGPC's responsibility to
> assess whether solutions can be found to mitigate friction between the
> GAC and the GNSO. Imagine the Board had just made a determination
> without reaching out to either party. I would have perceived that as
> top-down. Again, if proper process allows for considering and actually
> reaching compromise solutions, it is legitimate to ask the GNSO Council
> to consider this option.
>
> 3. Looking at what would need to be done, the modifications would be
> required:
>
> - The GNSO recommendations included one that would permit IGO acronyms
> for a 90 days claims service. The request is that this is extended to
> the lifetime of the TMCH. So basically we are talking about extending the
>
> - Opening the URS for these designations. That is covered by the
> recently initiated PDP. I also note that the Board has indicated they
> will wait for the outcome of the PDP.
>
> - Protecting additional RCRC designations, which have so far been
> granted the 90 days claims service in our recommendations.
>
> From memory, protections for IGO acronym protections have been the most
> controversial designations both at the WG as well as the Council level.
> For these, we are not asked for additional protections such as reserving
> or blocking.
>
> There should be a discussion whether or not the Council should reconvene
> the WG. I am standing by to continue chairing the WG and its
> deliberations if need be.
>
>
> Let me suggest we discuss the following two questions separately:
>
> 1. Shall the NGPC's recommendation be followed and the WG reconvene?
>
> 2. How does the Council view the Board's / NGPC's approach to resolving
> the issue?
>
> It seems to me that the concerns of many are relating to the second,
> fundamental question. This is why I think it would be helpful to
> separate the two, i.e. talk about the specific suggestion relating to
> the policy recommendations and also about the more general issue.
>
> Best,
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
> Am 17.06.2014 um 18:22 schrieb [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Based on the presentation we got from Chris Disspain in Singapore, the
>> Board is trying to figure out how to abide by the contradictory
>> Council policy (passed unanimously) and GAC advice (s growing presence
>> in the life of ICANN) on the matter. I feel their pain, but
>> worry/assume in the current Internet governance-fueled environment, if
>> a collaborative solution is not found, the GAC will prevail.
>>
>> Not compromise or capitulation, but collaboration.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Berard
>>
>>
>> --------- Original Message ---------
>> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Letter from Cherine Chalaby
>> From: "Maria Farrell" <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> Date: 6/17/14 9:08 am
>> To: "Jonathan Robinson" <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> Cc: "Marika Konings" <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, "James M. Bladel"
>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>,
>> "[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>"
>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>
>> Thanks so much, Jonathan.
>>
>>
>> On 17 June 2014 16:51, Jonathan Robinson <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks James & Maria,
>>
>>
>>
>> Noted. We have a lengthy slot on Saturday to discuss
>> substantial issues as well as our session with the Board.
>>
>>
>>
>> I expect that this issue can be well aired then and it is also
>> likely to be on our agenda for the public GNSO Council meeting
>> on Wednesday.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*Maria Farrell [mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>> *Sent:* 17 June 2014 15:19
>> *To:* Marika Konings
>> *Cc:* James M. Bladel; [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>; [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [council] FW: Letter from Cherine Chalaby
>>
>>
>>
>> This indeed very concerning - a further extension of
>> supra-legal 'rights' using the TMCH, itself a deeply
>> problematic mechanism created in inequitable circumstances.
>>
>> I also hope that sufficient time will be allocated at our
>> meeting to discuss this issue.
>>
>> Maria
>>
>>
>>
>> On 17 June 2014 08:12, Marika Konings
>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi James,
>>
>>
>>
>> We'll get the letter posted on the GNSO correspondence page.
>> Please note that in the meantime it is also available from the
>> Council mailing list archives
>> (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pdfJhQNX8whn3.pdf).
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Marika
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *"James M. Bladel" <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> *Date: *Tuesday 17 June 2014 08:47
>> *To: *Jonathan Robinson <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, "[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> *Subject: *Re: [council] FW: Letter from Cherine Chalaby
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan and fellow Councilors:
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a concerning development, and I hope we will have
>> ample space on our agenda to discuss in London. Question:
>> Will this letter be published on the GNSO/ICANN
>> correspondence page in advance of the weekend sessions?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks—
>>
>>
>>
>> J.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Jonathan Robinson <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> *Organization: *Afilias
>> *Reply-To: *"[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> *Date: *Monday, June 16, 2014 at 23:11
>> *To: *GNSO Council List <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> *Subject: *[council] FW: Letter from Cherine Chalaby
>>
>>
>>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> FYI and for further discussion / follow-up.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*Megan Bishop [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> *Sent:* 16 June 2014 21:09
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *Subject:* Letter from Cherine Chalaby
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Jonathan,
>>
>>
>>
>> Attached please find a letter from Cherine Chalaby, providing
>> an update on the ongoing work by the NGPC in response to the
>> GNSO policy recommendations regarding Protection of IGO-INGO
>> identifiers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Megan
>>
>>
>>
>> Megan Bishop
>>
>> Board Support Coordinator
>>
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>>
>>
>> 12025 Waterfront Dr., Suite 300
>>
>> Los Angeles, CA 90094
>>
>> Mobile: +1-310-795-1894 <tel:%2B1-310-795-1894>
>>
>> Direct: +1-310-301-5808 <tel:%2B1-310-301-5808>
>>
>>
>>
>> /One World. One Internet./
>>
>>
>>
>
|
