Fwd: [council] GAC on Proxy
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Sun Mar 6 00:29:13 UTC 2016
We might wish to remind governments that they have the power to regulate
e-commerce. ICANN actually does not.
Stephanie
On 2016-03-05 12:30, David Cake wrote:
> I’m sure the WG Chairs would be happy to help formulate a response.
>
> The input from the GAC was, of course, considered (despite coming in
> quite late in the process). The WG simply came to different
> conclusions, in part due to very strong public comment (in the tens of
> thousands) expressing the opposite opinion on the issue of distinction
> mentioned here.
>
>
> David
>
>
>
>> On 5 Mar 2016, at 5:17 PM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-Systems.net
>> <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>> wrote:
>>
>> This will be on our table at the meeting with the GAC
>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>> AFRICAN UNION COMMISSION: I'M JUST WONDERING IF THIS IS THE RIGHT
>>> PLACE TO BRING THIS UP, BUT AS YOU'RE AWARE, THE GNSO HAVE RELEASED
>>> THE FINAL REPORT ON PRIVACY AND PROXY SERVICES ACCREDITATION ISSUES
>>> FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE ICANN BOARD.IF YOU RECALL, THE GAC HAD
>>> PROVIDED COMMENTS THAT WERE PREPARED BY THE PSWG LAST YEAR IN
>>> SEPTEMBER , ENDORSED AND APPROVED BY THE GAC.NOW, WHEN WE LOOK AT
>>> THIS REPORT, A NUMBER OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE GAC HAVE
>>> NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. AND CONSIDERING THAT THE BOARD IS
>>> MEANT TO BE CONSIDERING THIS REPORT, I'M WONDERING WHETHER WE MAY
>>> WANT TO FLAG THIS AS SOMETHING THAT WE MAY WANT TO THINK ABOUT,
>>> PROVIDING ADVICE TO THE BOARD, PARTICULARLY ON THE ISSUE OF
>>> DISTINCTION, ENSURING DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND
>>> NONCOMMERCIAL USERS.SO JUST A QUESTION AND SOMETHING TO FLAG
>>> CHAIR SCHNEIDER: THANK YOU, ALICE, FOR RAISING THIS. IN FACT, WE
>>> HAVE JUST RECEIVED A LETTER THAT -- FROM THE BOARD ON THIS ISSUE,
>>> AND WE MAY USE -- WE DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH TIME, BUT WE HAVE A LITTLE
>>> BIT OF TIME ON WEDNESDAY ALLOCATED TO THE WORKING GROUPS. AND SINCE
>>> THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE COMING OUT OF THE WORKING GROUP, AND THEY
>>> HAVEN'T BEEN REFLECTED IN THAT REPORT, IF WE DON'T HAVE TIME NOW,
>>> BUT IF PEOPLE AGREE, WE MAY START THINKING ABOUT IF THE GAC WISHES
>>> TO REFLECT THIS IN THE COMMUNIQUE, THAT WE DO THIS ON WEDNESDAY SO
>>> THAT WE CAN REFER TO THIS INPUT FROM THE GAC IN OUR COMMUNIQUE.I
>>> THINK WE SHOULD THEN SLOWLY MOVE ON, BUT I HAVE IRAN ON THIS
>>> ISSUE. THANK YOU.
>>> >>IRAN: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. NO PROBLEM TO PUT IT IN THE
>>> COMMUNIQUE, BUT MY QUESTION IS THAT IN THIS -- CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE
>>> THIS, WE MAKE A COMMENT, AND THIS COMMENT IS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
>>> IN THE RECOMMENDATION, GOES TO ICANN FOR CONSIDERATION. PERHAPS WE
>>> COULD RAISE THE ISSUE WITH ICANN AS WELL, EITHER IN A MEETING WE
>>> HAVE WITH THE BOARD OR OTHER. SO IT WAS MENTIONED DURING THE CCWG
>>> THAT THIS SORT OF INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE GAC AND THE GNSO AND
>>> OTHERS COMMUNITY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED IN APPROPRIATE MANNER.
>>> BUT WE SEE THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN, SO WE HAVE TO RAISE IT IN ORDER TO
>>> ENABLE THE BOARD TO MAKE NECESSARY DECISION THAT ARE APPROPRIATE.
>>> AND IF OUR COMMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, EITHER THEY
>>> ARE CONVINCED OUR COMMENTS ARE NOT RELEVANT OR OUR COMMENTS SHOULD
>>> BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.THANK YOU
>>> ;CHAIR SCHNEIDER: THANK YOU, KAVOUSS. THIS IS ACTUALLY A GOOD
>>> PROPOSAL. WE CAN ACTUALLY RAISE IT IN SEVERAL OCCASIONS. QT HE IS
>>> WHAT DO WE WANT? WE CAN RAISE IT DIRECTLY WITH THE GNSO, BECAUSE WE
>>> HAVE A MEETING WITH THEM. WE CAN RAISE IT WITH THE DISCUSSION WITH
>>> THE BOARD AND/OR WE CAN PUT IT IN....>> AT ALL. WITH
>>> EVERYBODY.>>
>>> CHAIR SCHNEIDER: BUT THE QUESTION IS WHAT DO WE THINK IS BEST.
>>> MAYBE SINCE WE HAVE THE DISCUSSION WITH THE GNSO FIRST, IF I'M NOT
>>> MISTAKEN -- UMM, YES, THAT'S TOMORROW AFTERNOON. WE MAY ACTUALLY
>>> THINK OF RAISING THAT ISSUE IN OUR EXCHANGE WITH THE GNSO AND ASK
>>> THEM WHY THEY DIDN'T TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT FOR A RATIONALE FOR
>>> THEIR DECISION. AND THEN WE CAN STILL SEE WITH THE PREPARATION FOR
>>> THE BOARD WHETHER WE WANT TO RAISE IT WITH THE BOARD AGAIN, HOW
>>> WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED. IS THAT OKAY?I SEE PEOPLE -- THANK
>>> YOU.OTHER COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS? IF THAT'S NOT THE CASE, THEN I
>>> THINK WE SHOULD USE THE TIME AND GO BACK TO THE KEY ITEM.
>>> )</textformat></flashrichtext>
>>> *Jeffrey J. Neuman*
>>> *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA***| *Com Laude USA*
>>> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
>>> Mclean, VA 22102, United States
>>> E:_jeff.neuman at valideus.com
>>> <mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com>_or_jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>>> <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>_
>>> T: +1.703.635.7514
>>> M: +1.202.549.5079
>>> @Jintlaw
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20160305/6e9469a9/attachment.html>
More information about the council
mailing list