<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div><div>Further to discussions among a few of us, here's some draft text for consideration. When we have something stable this can be folded into a doc Rosemary has assembled with background information etc.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div><div>———————</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-decoration: underline;">Draft Plan for the Joint GAC/GNSO meeting in Nairobi</span></b><br><br>GNSO Proposal for the Joint Meeting <br><br>The GAC proposed the first two subject areas below and the third was suggested in the GNSO. Each could be discussed for up to 20 minutes, or we could select two of the three to discuss for a half hour each. Included below are examples of the kinds of questions we might consider addressing under each heading.<br><br><br><b>1. New gTLD Implementation and Expressions of Interest</b><br> <br><i>a. Clarification questions from the GNSO: </i><div><br>i. Do GAC members have any remaining concerns with respect to geographic and intellectual property protections? <br>ii. The GAC proposed that some additional studies be conducted before new gTLDs are launched; what negative effects, if any, could be foreseen if such studies are not completed before the launch?<br>iii. The GAC has questioned the desirability of a single fee structure for new gTLDs. How might variable fees affect market entry and the larger Internet environment? How would they impact the distribution and recovery of costs? <br>iv. The GAC has raised a number of concerns about the suitability and time frame of the EOI model. Does it have specific suggestions as to how the model could be improved, or a superior alternative model to suggest?<br> <br><i>b. Questions or comments from GAC members:</i><br> <br> <br><b>2. The Affirmation of Commitments</b><br> <br><i>a. Clarification questions from the GNSO:</i></div><div><br>i. How would GAC members define the meaning of the ”public interest” in relation to ICANN's identity and mission?<br>ii. Do GAC members have any specific suggestions on how ICANN's various bodies, such as the GNSO, could more effectively embody public interest standards in their work programs?<br>iii. Do GAC members have any thoughts or expectations regarding the relevance to the GNSO's policy development process of any recommendations that may be advanced by the AoC Accountability and Transparency Review Team?<br> <br><i>b. Questions or comments from GAC members</i><br> <br> <br><b>3. ICANN in the Wider International Environment</b><br> <br><i>a. Discussion questions from the GNSO:</i></div><div><br>i. Can GAC members explain the relationship to ICANN in general and to the GAC principles in particular of the ongoing intergovernmental discussions (e.g., in the ITU and CSTD) concerning Enhanced Cooperation on Globally Applicable Public Policy Principles?<br>ii. Can GAC members help us to understand the objectives and prospects of the various other proposals that have been advanced in the ITU (some of which could be taken up by its October 2010 Plenipotentiary Conference) concerning such topics as the provision of registry services, the harmonization and coordination of ccTLD policies, internationalized domain names, the interface between international laws and treaties and Internet governance, security and stability, IPV6, dispute resolution, and so on?<br> <br><i>b. Questions or comments from GAC members</i><br> <br><br><br><b><br></b><div>
***********************************************************<br>William J. Drake<br>Senior Associate<br>Centre for International Governance<br>Graduate Institute of International and<br> Development Studies<br>Geneva, Switzerland<br><a href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch">william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch</a><br>www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html<br>***********************************************************<br><br>
</div>
<br></div></body></html>