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