[council] FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Update from Chris Disspain on the IGO protections issue

Mary Wong mary.wong at icann.org
Mon Aug 22 10:21:03 UTC 2016


Hi Julf and everyone,

I can’t speak for Chris, so please let us know if you have follow up questions for him. However, perhaps the following staff observation can be helpful. 

During the discussion between the Council and the Board in Helsinki, several Board members were quite clear that the Board is not the place where substantive policy decisions are made – rather, when different parts of the community come up with different advice, it’s for the Board to facilitate bringing the groups’ positions together rather than just deciding which position to adopt based on the Board’s own wishes. In other words, they see the Board as helping to frame the discussion going forward rather than coming up with its own policy.

If, ultimately, there is no resolution of the conflict and the Board is faced with different and inconsistent advice, there are specific processes in the Bylaws for the Board to use in proceeding with next steps. For instance, the Bylaws provide for certain mechanisms if the Board rejects GAC advice on the one hand, and other mechanisms if on the other hand the Board rejects GNSO policy recommendations. I believe these alternatives were outlined by Chris in Helsinki as well. 

While the GAC has already issued its advice on the matter, there is still a possibility that the GNSO may modify its policy should it decide it is justified and appropriate to do so (for which the applicable GNSO process is documented in the PDP Manual). In addition, the GNSO’s IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP has yet to be completed. Assuming the GNSO does not change its policy recommendations and the Curative Rights PDP recommendations are also different from GAC advice, the Board will then have to decide whether to adopt the GAC advice or the GNSO policy – which would not be the case if the inconsistencies between the GAC and the GNSO recommendations are reconciled.

I hope this is helpful. The transcript of the GNSO-Board discussion in Helsinki can be found here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-gnso-board-27jun16-en.pdf. 

Cheers
Mary


Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong at icann.org
Telephone: +1-603-5744889



On 8/22/16, 17:18, "owner-council at gnso.icann.org on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <owner-council at gnso.icann.org on behalf of julf at julf.com> wrote:

    
    In the note from Chris Disspain, he on one hand states
    "As we noted in Helsinki, this would be the appropriate next
    step since the GNSO is responsible for gTLD policy development",
    so he acknowledges that the GNSO is indeed responsible for gTLD
    policy development, but then continues with "The outcome of the
    GNSO’s deliberations will then be considered by the Board in its
    determination of whether it will accept the GNSO’s recommendations
    as consistent with GAC advice or not."
    
    So what happens (procedurally) if the Board does not accept the
    GNSO recommendations as "consistent with GAC advice"?
    
    	Julf
    
    
    





More information about the council mailing list