[council] Re: Draft Response to Board - GNSO Review of IGO/INGO "Small Group" Proposal

Heather Forrest Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au
Sun Nov 6 06:24:49 UTC 2016

Council Colleagues,

I'd like to put the Council's reply to the Board on the IGO/INGO small group on our list of informal discussion topics for this evening just to make sure this response doesn't fall off our radar.

Concerns were raised in our working session about the need to strike the right tone.

Two questions - 1) do we have interested councillors to further finesse the language? and 2) how is our reply impacted by our upcoming meeting with the board? Ie, do we wait until after our meeting with the Board to reply, and do we want to strategically discuss this evening our tone for dealing with this face to face when we meet with the Board?

Best wishes,


From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org <owner-council at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 1:32:15 AM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] Draft Response to Board - GNSO Review of IGO/INGO "Small Group" Proposal

Council Colleagues -

Attached, please find a draft letter developed by a subteam of Councilors in response to the Board's letter on IGO Acronyms, and the accompanying "small group" proposal.  I recognize that many of you are already en route to Hyderabad, but hopefully you'll have a chance to review prior to our meeting on 7 NOV.

Here are a few highlights:

*         The Council believes that elements of the "small group" proposal relating to IGO Acronyms were previously and effectively considered in the PDP that was adopted in 2013.

*         The Council has no current plans to reconsider its standing recommendations to the Board.

*         While the Council does have a procedure for amending policy recommendations in extraordinary circumstances, this process could have significant implications for future PDPs.

o    Additionally, any review of previous recommendations is complicated by the nearly 3 year delay since this PDP was adopted.

*         Those elements that are within scope for the current Curative Rights PDP Working Group have been referred to that WG, which reviewed them during its call on 13 OCT.

Finally, we have included a staff-prepared comparison table, highlighting the differences between the PDP, the proposal, and GAC advice, including references to relevant areas of the original PDP Final Report.

I hope that these materials will help inform our discussion on 7 NOV, and our response to the Board on this topic.

Safe travels, and see you in Hyderabad!

Thank you--

James Bladel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20161106/729e762c/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list