My tweet summary: #ICANN board rightly replies #GAC advise goo.gl/eEEU0L that ICRC names should not endure PDP indignity: RTFM goo.gl/8gRhcy > On Nov 4, 2014, at 10:16 AM, David Cake <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > I think this is a very welcome and appropriate action by the board. > And a very welcome push back against some GAC members who seem to think the GACs role is whatever they would like it to be, and a very solid and appropriate defence of the GNSOs (and therefore multi-stakeholder policy making) in policy development. > > David > > > On 4 Nov 2014, at 1:39 pm, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > >> >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [council] Letter from Steve Crocker to GAC Chair regarding GNSO/GAC role in gTLD policy development >> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 04:33:11 +0000 >> From: Mary Wong <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> >> Dear Council members, >> >> You and your communities will likely be interested in the latest letter sent >> by Board Chair Steve Crocker to new GAC Chair Thomas Schneider, responding >> to that part of the GAC advice in its London Communique in which the GAC >> commented that protections for Red Cross designations ought not to be >> conditioned on a PDP: >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-schneider-03 <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-schneider-03> >> nov14-en.pdf >> >> Pertinent parts of Dr Crocker¹s letter include the following excerpt: "While >> the GAC may participate in the policy development process, and has a role to >> ³provide advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of >> governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between >> ICANN¹s policies and various laws and international agreements or where they >> may affect public policy issues,² the GNSO has the authority to recommend >> substantive policies on topics that are within the scope of ICANN¹s mission >> statement, has potentially broad applicability to multiple situations or >> organizations, is likely to have lasting value or applicability, and will >> establish a guide or framework for future decision-making. The Board has >> concerns about the advice in the London Communiqué because it appears to be >> inconsistent with the framework established in the Bylaws granting the GNSO >> authority to recommend consensus policies to the Board, and the Board to >> appropriately act upon policies developed through the bottom-up consensus >> policy developed by the GNSO.² >> >> Dr Crocker¹s letter also serves to ³kick off² the prescribed Board-GAC >> consultation process envisaged in the ICANN Bylaws in instances where the >> Board disagrees with GAC advice. >> >> Cheers >> Mary >> >> Mary Wong >> Senior Policy Director >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >> Email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org [log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists), www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************