[bc-gnso] Excerpts from GAC Chair Heather Dryden on Beijing GAC Advice
Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com
Sat May 11 17:12:54 UTC 2013
Many thanks to Ron and Steve for heading this endeavor.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 11, 2013, at 9:57 AM, "Ron Andruff" <randruff at rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com>> wrote:
Thanks for the summary Steve. While the message heard by different listeners is often interpreted to fit their end, I would say that Heather captured very well the message I was trying to articulate in our Friday call, I.e. The GAC is our friend in court. Our job is to put some 'meat on the bones' in support of their openings to move the process forward. Any derogatory commentary will only alienate our ally.
As requested, I'll get a draft of the language around regulated industries and possible safeguards to you for our BC response by the start of the week.
-------- Original message --------
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>>
To: bc-gnso at icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso at icann.org>
Subject: [bc-gnso] Excerpts from GAC Chair Heather Dryden on Beijing GAC Advice
Some key quotes from GAC Chair's interview (link<https://www.youtube.com/embed/I9hZCGnRh0I>)
GAC Consensus Advice (where no GAC member objected to the advice) was given only for .africa and .gcc. Rest of the Beijing advice was not "GAC Consensus" but it "must be given due consideration"
Safeguard advice was about pre-existing obligations and applicable laws. It was not to impose new obligations. Raises valid implementation questions.
GAC advice suggests no new global regulatory regime. It's consistent with ICANN's existing role.
It's preferable to have Safeguards measure in order to allow these new TLDs to proceed, rather than discussions about objections form GAC or others.
GAC believes there should be good reason to have an exclusive generic TLD. The community may want discussion about the Public Interest.
Question: Did GAC give new rules at the 11th hour? GAC suggested categories like this previously but this advice was not taken. So GAC is using the mechanisms ICANN created. GAC's primary role is to advise on public policy aspects. We have acted.
Question: What if ICANN Board ignores this GAC Advice? We'd question the value of governments participating in ICANN. Need to show that GAC is a useful mechanism. Otherwise why would governments support this model?
Question: what is GAC priority for Durban? The 14 strings for Further Consideration (1.c) and implementation of GAC advice on Safeguards.
From: Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>
Date: Friday, May 10, 2013 11:21 PM
To: "bc-gnso at icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso at icann.org>" <bc-gnso at icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso at icann.org>>
Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: GAC Chair Heather Dryden on the Beijing Communiqué and New gTLD Advice | 10 May 2013 - YouTube
BC members considering the GAC Communique should watch this.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
More information about the Bc-gnso