[council] ICANN's Legislative/Regulatory Tracker -- Recommended Improvements

[Erika Mann]

Carlos - we can add the GAC to the list as an important partner but I doubt
many will be able in alerting ICANN about potentially problematic
legislations they're or their parliaments are drafting. In many cases they
will not even know. For example, I'm doubtful that the European Parliament,
the European Commission or European Member States are aware about
potentially - for the domain sector - problematic aspects of the copyright
law they recently all supported.
Erika

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 2:26 PM Carlos Raul Gutierrez <
carlosraul at gutierrez.se> wrote:

> A lot of good ideas but I don't see the GAC in any of those. The most
> probable source or shapping force of any initiative that may be closely
> related and affect the DNS is sitting in the next room at every meeting.
> What about asking them?
>
> Thanks! Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>
> El 10 abr. 2019 4:01, Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com> escribió:
>
> Keith, All -
>
> I believe the current format and information gathering practice (
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/legislative-regulatory-30jan19-en.pdf)  is
> not sufficient and would therefore recommend few things:
>
>    - ICANN ORG should work with a professional firm in receiving regular
>    updates (monitoring report) about regulatory issues that cause concern
>    -
>       - To make such a Monitoring Report (MR) not too expensive
>       -
>          - ICANN should focus on few regions, regions that cause the
>          majority of concerns
>          - Monitoring reports should be received 4 times/year
>          - Early warning notes should be received as quickly as possible
>       - The current Crowed Sourced Tracking Report should remain as an
>    additional information source
>    https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/legislative-regulatory-30jan19-en.pdf
>    - I agree with Paul that it is key "CANN’s government relations folks
>    to visit us at Council and highlight the main issues it sees heading our
>    way"
>    - I agree with Flip, the list of topics that should be monitored need
>    to be broadened
>    - I agree with Ayden to some degree but recommend to focus on few
>    aspect "ICANN should monitor 1) the impact the law/regulation/directive has
>    had as it relates to ICANN's remit" and, once a legislation is introduced,
>    ICANN must do a compliance assessment. I don't believe that lobbying
>    strategies should be broadly discussed in the community.
>    - I agree with Martin, the Crowed Sourced Tracking Report should
>    cooperate with existing Regional Intelligence Tracking Reports.
>
> Kind regards,
> Erika
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 8:35 PM Drazek, Keith via council <
> council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>
> Ayden, Darcy, Erika, Flip, Michele, Phillipe and Tatiana:
>
>
>
> During our GNSO Working Session in Kobe, the seven of you volunteered to
> help develop GNSO Council recommendations for improvements to ICANN’s
> current Legislative/Regulatory tracking effort.
>
>
>
> As we discussed, ICANN’s work in this area is relatively new and still
> evolving, and we have an opportunity to engage with Theresa’s group to help
> shape their approach to ensure it is applicable to our policy work and
> process management responsibilities. While their work product is currently
> a spreadsheet, I recall we agreed it needs to go much deeper in analysis
> and demonstrate a predictive capability for where future or existing
> regulations impact GNSO policies, in effect now or under future development.
>
>
>
> Please work together and with Staff to help kick off this important and
> timely work.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> 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/20190410/0dacc6b7/attachment.html>