<div dir="ltr">James, <div><br></div><div>sorry for missing the call last Thursday. Here are my personal suggestions to the issues that a focused letter should raise to the board before their meeting with the GAC based on comments of the drafting team so far:</div><div><br></div><div>
<p class="gmail-p1"><span class="gmail-s1">1. In the case of the Red Cross et. al., the Copenhagen mediation by a former Board member made a clear Board resolution possible! The GNSO council looks forward to a revision of the policy based on this resolution, as the international law basis for the Red Cross <a href="http://et.al">et.al</a>. can be considered rather homogeneous.</span></p>
<p class="gmail-p2"><span class="gmail-s1"></span><br></p>
<p class="gmail-p1"><span class="gmail-s1">2. In the case to the IGOs, The GNSO’s IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group is actively reviewing all comments received on its Initial Report, including the comment submitted by the GAC. It remains clear from the mediation efforts during the Copenhagen meeting, that there is still the expectation in the Council that the Boards owes the GNSO community a clear resolution to direct future efforts in an efficient way forward, as was the case with the Red Cross <a href="http://et.al">et.al</a>.</span></p>
<p class="gmail-p2"><span class="gmail-s1"></span><br></p>
<p class="gmail-p1"><span class="gmail-s1">3. In the case of the delegation of 2-letter codes, some members of the Council will like to raise serious concerns to the Board, of the impact that bilateral case by case resolution with Governments could have on the principle of bottom-up policy development of ICANN. Instead of developing a consensus position that all GAC members have agreed with, the Consensus Advice mechanism found in the bylaws is being circumvented to order the ICANN Board to negotiate with, and presumably reach agreement on, each government’s individual demands. This should not be considered proper “Consensus Advice”, but could rather be considered an attempt to circumvent the very clear threshold for the GAC to issue “Consensus Advice”.</span></p>
<p class="gmail-p2"><span class="gmail-s1"></span><br></p>
<p class="gmail-p1"><span class="gmail-s1">4. In the case of the Mitigation of the DNS abuse, the GNSO Council refers to its input to the Board regarding the GAC’s Hyderabad Communique on this topic, and reiterates the concerns it stated in that response: <a href="https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-15dec16-en.pdf"><span class="gmail-s2">https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-15dec16-en.pdf</span></a>. </span></p></div><div><br></div><div>I hope it helps.</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez<br>ISOC Costa Rica Chapter<br>skype carlos.raulg<br>+506 8837 7176 <br>________<br>Apartado 1571-1000<br>COSTA RICA</div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:04 PM, James M. Bladel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com" target="_blank">jbladel@godaddy.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="m_8014681508708695375WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Councilors – <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Please see attached for a revised version of this comment document. Note that due to a configuration error, I appear as both “James Bladel” and “Microsoft User”. I’ve attempted to clarify existing comments,
but I believe we still have some work to do in item #2 (IGO Protections). I’m good with the other elements of the comment.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">As we are attempting to hit a short deadline, please review and provide your comments as soon as possible. I will then work with Staff to (a) restructure this document in the form of a letter that can be
sent to the Board and (b) prepare a new formal motion for consideration at or before our next meeting.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Thank you,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">J.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">From: </span></b><span style="color:black"><<a href="mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">council-bounces@gnso.icann.<wbr>org</a>> on behalf of Mary Wong <<a href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org" target="_blank">mary.wong@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Friday, April 21, 2017 at 10:18 <br>
<b>To: </b>GNSO Council List <<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">council@gnso.icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[council] FOR REVIEW/COMMENTS: Draft GNSO Council response on gTLD policy issues in the GAC Copenhagen Communique<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear Councilors,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">As discussed on the Council call yesterday, please find attached the current draft of a possible GNSO Council response to the gTLD policy issues raised in the GAC’s Copenhagen Communique. Staff had taken the
liberty, when assisting the group of Council volunteers on this effort, of inserting certain comments and suggestions that are also reflected in the document.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Please review the document and send your comments and suggestions to this mailing list. As noted on the Council call, the Board’s call with the GAC on the Communique is scheduled for 27 April, so it will be
ideal if the Council chairs are in a position to send a note generally highlighting the Council’s views before that date, with a view toward formal Council adoption of the final text at the Council’s next meeting in mid-May.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Thanks and cheers</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Mary</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
council mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/council</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>