[atrt2] PDP Effectiveness Study

[Carlos Raul]

if everything you said is true, the absolute absence of GAC advice is
enough to ring all the bells Allan!!!!
If GAC is innefective, do we need another GAC model? GA without a "C"?


*Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez*
Skype   carlos.raulg
_________
Apartado 1571-1000
*COSTA RICA*



On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:

> Lise,
>
> As I said in the meeting, if we cite the GAC
> explicitly, we will also need to add whether that
> any GAC advice/views were received in a timely manner.
>
> I did not call out the GAC explicitly when I
> drafted this, because I was aware of the answer.
> On the PDP process that we will be evaluating, I
> do not believe that we have received any GAC
> advice or even, had the benefit of general views
> during the process. There may be some subtle
> examples of views being known, but I can't be
> sure. I cannot recal any intervention of the GAC
> AFTER the PDP was completed and passed to the
> Board where the GAC objected. Perhaps Avri has a memory of such an
> occurrence.
>
> Note that the new gTLD PDP was before the period
> we are reviewing, since it was a completely
> different process, the IGO/INGO PDP is not yet
> completed, and there has been no completed PDP on
> Whois during that period either.
>
> Alan
>
> At 21/06/2013 05:26 AM, Lise Fuhr wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I think that Avri´s version changes the focus too much away from the
> purpose
> >of Jørgen's text, a purpose that it  is my understanding that there were
> >support to at the conference call.
> >
> >If we only look at GAC's status as defined in ICANN's bylaws the scope is
> >much narrower and we will not review if there are any needs to change the
> >bylaws or other processes but only if ICANN is complying to the existing
> >bylaws in this matter.
> >
> >So I find we should keep Jørgen's wording.
> >
> >Best,
> >Lise
> >
> >-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> >Fra: atrt2-bounces at icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces at icann.org] På vegne af
> >Avri Doria
> >Sendt: 20. juni 2013 20:21
> >Cc: ATRT2
> >Emne: Re: [atrt2] PDP Effectiveness Study
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >I would be more comfortable with a more ICANN centric question, like:
> >
> >- Whether the views of the GAC have been handled appropriately given their
> >status as defined in the ICANN bylaws.
> >
> >
> >avri
> >
> >
> >On 20 Jun 2013, at 12:41, Jørgen C Abild Andersen wrote:
> >
> > > Dear colleagues
> > >
> > > Proposal for a new bullit between 86 and 87 (a 86A):
> > >
> > > - whether in particular the views and advice provided by GAC has been
> duly
> >taken into account given the specific tasks of national governments with
> >respect to public policy.
> > >
> > > Best wishes
> > > Jørgen
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > atrt2 mailing list
> > > atrt2 at icann.org
> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >atrt2 mailing list
> >atrt2 at icann.org
> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >atrt2 mailing list
> >atrt2 at icann.org
> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> atrt2 mailing list
> atrt2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130621/950f3c68/attachment.html>