[council] FW: The 2-Character Answer to this GAC Advice Should be "No"

[Phil Corwin]

Very welcome James.

That draft GNSO response is quoted at Appendix item #5 in the article. As the article notes, it was transmitted to and received by the Board two days prior to the Board/GAC call in which there was agreement to engage in further discussions with the aggrieved GAC members.

Best to all, Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 12:44 PM
To: Phil Corwin; council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] FW: The 2-Character Answer to this GAC Advice Should be "No"

Phil –  Thanks for sharing this post.

Councilors – For your convenience, I’ve attached the latest draft of our response to the GAC’s Copenhagen Communique.  The 2-character issue is referenced as Item #4 in this response.

Thank you,

J.


From: <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:34
To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: [council] FW: The 2-Character Answer to this GAC Advice Should be "No"

Fellow Councilors – this new article relates to the response to Copenhagen GAC advice that we shall be voting on in two days.

Best, Philip


From: Phil Corwin
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 9:29 AM
To: Phil Corwin
Subject: The 2-Character Answer to this GAC Advice Should be "No"

I have just published a new article regarding current ICANN developments between the Board and GAC. It can be found at http://www.circleid.com/posts/20170516_the_2_character_answer_to_this_gac_advice_should_be_no/

Here’s the introduction—
Overview: ICANN’s GAC has reacted to the ICANN Board’s November 2016 decision to authorize the release of two-character domains at new gTLDs with advice to the Board that does not   have true consensus backing from GAC members and that relates to procedure, not policy. The Board’s proper response should be to just say no,  stick to its decision and advise the GAC that it will not consider such advice.
Instead, the Board has, against the preliminary advice of the policy-making GNSO Council, initiated discussions with aggrieved GAC members that may reopen its decision. Continuing down this dangerous path may provide governments with far more leverage over ICANN policy decisions than was ever envisioned or intended by the long debated and carefully crafted new Bylaws language addressing the Board’s responsibility to give attention to GAC advice.

I hope you find it of interest and welcome any feedback.

Best regards,
Philip


Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature>
Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4776/14441 - Release Date: 05/06/17
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature>
Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4776/14441 - Release Date: 05/06/17
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20170516/aa9f0285/attachment.html>