-------- 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./ >> >> >> >