[council] FW: Request to post - GAC/GNSO joint meeting

Thu Feb 18 20:43:32 UTC 2010

Please do NOT post Glen.  I need to get feedback from Janis before it is finalized.

Chuck

________________________________

	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
	Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 9:53 AM
	To: Council GNSO
	Subject: [council] FW: Request to post - GAC/GNSO joint meeting

	Forwarded From: Rosemary To: Gomes, Chuck; William Drake; Glen de Saint Géry; Stéphane Van Gelder; KnobenW at telekom.de; Glen de Saint Géry; Cavalli, Olga
	Subject: Request to post - GAC/GNSO joint meeting

	Glen

	I think I have made the right changes - 2am here - would youpost this doc for me pls?

	Cheers

	Rosemary

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
	Sent: Thu 2/18/2010 1:16 AM
	To: Gomes, Chuck; William Drake; Glen de Saint Géry; Rosemary Sinclair; Stéphane Van Gelder; KnobenW at telekom.de; Glen de Saint Géry; Cavalli, Olga
	Subject: RE: Drafting team to prepare for the GAC/GNSO joint meeting

	Here's the redline version I sent earlier in the week.  If no one objects, let's post a clean version of this and send it to the Council ASAP.

	Glen - Can you do that?  If someone want to make changes, please do so.  I am about to head to the airport so will not be able to do much for a few hours.  Don't wait for me.

	Chuck

	________________________________

	        From: Gomes, Chuck
	        Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 8:23 AM
	        To: William Drake; Glen de Saint Géry; Rosemary Sinclair; Stéphane Van Gelder; KnobenW at telekom.de; Glen de Saint Géry; Cavalli, Olga
	        Subject: RE: Drafting team to prepare for the GAC/GNSO joint meeting

	        I proposed a final version and was waiting for feedback from others on this list.  If you are okay with what I did, please distribute it Bill in Rosemary's absence (she is not available until Thursday her time).  If not, make any changes and send it.

	        I am traveling today and will have limited email access.

	        Chuck

	________________________________

	                From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
	                Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 6:58 AM
	                To: Gomes, Chuck; Glen de Saint Géry; Rosemary Sinclair; Stéphane Van Gelder; KnobenW at telekom.de; Glen de Saint Géry; Cavalli, Olga
	                Subject: Re: Drafting team to prepare for the GAC/GNSO joint meeting

	                This is on the agenda for tomorrow's call, shouldn't we send it to the Council to see prior?

	                                        1. New gTLD Implementation &EOI
	                                        Discussion of any specific and actionable recommendations on, for example:
	                                        *any remaining concerns with respect to geographic & property protections
	                                        *the utility of the studies proposed by the GAC, and the foreseen negative effects if they are not completed pre-launch
	                                        *how categorization could work[Gomes, Chuck]  I know there are some in the GAC, in particular Bertrand, who still are pushing this, but I don't think it has much of chance to be considered so I think it would be a poor use of time and could take a lot of time as well.  If they bring it up, we cannot avoid that but I would not recommend we bring it up.
	                                        *desirable fee structures
	                                        *desired timeline for the roll out of new gTLDs

	                        I was listing topics GAC has raised as indicators of the pool from which we could draw.  Obviously there won't be able to discuss all of these irrespective of whether there are two topics or three.  In that context, I didn't think it was up to us to judge which we considered meritorious or likely to go anywhere, as some government might object to us pruning.  But if people think doing so is ok in terms of sensitivities and optics, fine by me.

	                                        2.  Affirmation of Commitments
	                                        Discussion of perspectives on:
	                                        *the meaning of public interest in relation to ICANN's identity and mission
	                                        *the operationalization of public interest standards in relation to the work programs of ICANN's various bodies
	                                        *specific accountability and transparency considerations with respect to GNSO's policy dev process

	                                        3.  ICANN in the Wider International Environment
	                                        Discussion of the relationship to ICANN in general and to GAC policies and principles in particular of:
	                                        *the ongoing intergovernmental discussions (e.g. in the ITU and CSTD[Gomes, Chuck]  what is CSTD )

	                        The UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=2696

	                                        concerning Enhanced Cooperation on Globally Applicable Public Policy Principles
	                                        *the various other proposals that have been advanced in the ITU and could be taken up by its October 2010 Plenipotentiary Conference concerning, e.g. 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, dispute resolution,  and so on

	                        I cut nondiscrimination, that's more about traffic than ICANN

	                        Shall we send this to council and get some feedback?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100218/b1ae3a29/attachment.html>