[council] LAST CALL: Draft GNSO Council response on gTLD policy issues in the GAC Copenhagen Communique

Mon Apr 24 14:59:51 UTC 2017

Dear all,

As the Board and GAC will be meeting this Thursday to discuss the GAC Copenhagen Communique, please provide any comments or suggestions on the current draft of the GNSO Council response as soon as possible and preferably no later than 1400 UTC tomorrow (Tuesday 25 April). We are suggesting this deadline as the Council leadership needs to finalize the letter to be sent to the Board the same day noting the gist of the Council’s response.

For your convenience, the latest draft is attached. This contains the edits made by James and the suggestions from Paul (see thread below). Your comments on Issue 2 (IGO names and acronyms) and Issue 4 (two-letter codes) will be particularly welcome as those are the topics on which substantive language has either been provided or requires resolution.

Thanks and cheers
Mary

From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg at isoc-cr.org>
Date: Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 08:34
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [council] FOR REVIEW/COMMENTS: Draft GNSO Council response on gTLD policy issues in the GAC Copenhagen Communique

James,

sorry for missing the call last Thursday. Here are my personal suggestions to the issues that a focused letter should raise to the board before their meeting with the GAC based on comments of the drafting team so far:

1. In the case of the Red Cross et. al., the Copenhagen mediation by a former Board member made a clear Board resolution possible! The GNSO council looks forward to a revision of the policy based on this resolution, as the international law basis for the Red Cross et.al[et.al]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__et.al&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=TseDXXOR-59M_1ncIXDZ4zK87ZZC-IzNhROgv_QtNkI&s=NB1B4pDwoNZGVxDt4TGRbbQAnE7dzTh4IBWeXfWRU4w&e=>. can be considered rather homogeneous.

2. In the case to the IGOs, The GNSO’s IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group is actively reviewing all comments received on its Initial Report, including the comment submitted by the GAC. It remains clear from the mediation efforts during the Copenhagen meeting, that there is still the expectation in the Council that the Boards owes the GNSO community a clear resolution to direct future efforts in an efficient way forward, as was the case with the Red Cross et.al[et.al]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__et.al&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=TseDXXOR-59M_1ncIXDZ4zK87ZZC-IzNhROgv_QtNkI&s=NB1B4pDwoNZGVxDt4TGRbbQAnE7dzTh4IBWeXfWRU4w&e=>.

3. In the case of the delegation of 2-letter codes, some members of the Council will like to raise serious concerns to the Board, of the impact that bilateral case by case resolution with Governments could have on the principle of bottom-up policy development of ICANN. Instead of developing a consensus position that all GAC members have agreed with, the Consensus Advice mechanism found in the bylaws is being circumvented to order the ICANN Board to negotiate with, and presumably reach agreement on, each government’s individual demands.  This should not be considered proper “Consensus Advice”, but could rather be considered an attempt to circumvent the very clear threshold for the GAC to issue “Consensus Advice”.

4. In the case of the Mitigation of the DNS abuse, the GNSO Council refers to its input to the Board regarding the GAC’s Hyderabad Communique on this topic, and reiterates the concerns it stated in that response: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-15dec16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_review-2Dgac-2Dcommunique-2D15dec16-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=TseDXXOR-59M_1ncIXDZ4zK87ZZC-IzNhROgv_QtNkI&s=r9GlFY9q-by9JdnBqZ9ugGNWTNV2YiMK2C0xKKoGeis&e=>.

I hope it helps.

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
ISOC Costa Rica Chapter
skype carlos.raulg
+506 8837 7176
________
Apartado 1571-1000
COSTA RICA

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:04 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>> wrote:
Councilors –

Please see attached for a revised version of this comment document.  Note that due to a configuration error, I appear as both “James Bladel” and “Microsoft User”.   I’ve attempted to clarify existing comments, but I believe we still have some work to do in item #2 (IGO Protections).  I’m good with the other elements of the comment.

As we are attempting to hit a short deadline, please review and provide your comments as soon as possible.  I will then work with Staff to (a) restructure this document in the form of a letter that can be sent to the Board and (b) prepare a new formal motion for consideration at or before our next meeting.

Thank you,

J.

From: <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
Date: Friday, April 21, 2017 at 10:18
To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: [council] FOR REVIEW/COMMENTS: Draft GNSO Council response on gTLD policy issues in the GAC Copenhagen Communique

Dear Councilors,

As discussed on the Council call yesterday, please find attached the current draft of a possible GNSO Council response to the gTLD policy issues raised in the GAC’s Copenhagen Communique. Staff had taken the liberty, when assisting the group of Council volunteers on this effort, of inserting certain comments and suggestions that are also reflected in the document.

Please review the document and send your comments and suggestions to this mailing list. As noted on the Council call, the Board’s call with the GAC on the Communique is scheduled for 27 April, so it will be ideal if the Council chairs are in a position to send a note generally highlighting the Council’s views before that date, with a view toward formal Council adoption of the final text at the Council’s next meeting in mid-May.

Thanks and cheers
Mary

_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20170424/d7d8110b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Council Review of GAC Communique - CPH - 21 April 2017.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 33942 bytes
Desc: GNSO Council Review of GAC Communique - CPH - 21 April 2017.docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20170424/d7d8110b/GNSOCouncilReviewofGACCommunique-CPH-21April2017.docx>