NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 19 Jun 2014 12:30:47 -0400
Reply-To:
Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From:
Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (290 lines)
-------- 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./
>>
>>          
>>
> 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2