[council] GNSO Council Review of ICANN 65 GAC Communique

[McGrady, Paul D.]

Thanks Keith.  Thanks Julf.

I don’t think that this should be the final version.  Julf’s suggestion to refer back to the Abu Dhabi doesn’t make sense to me since events have overtaken that.  I think, instead, that we should address the actual GAC advice, namely, a request that the Board write to the GAC and explain why the Board believes it has complied with GAC advice in relationship to this decision.  Let’s focus on that and delete the language proposed by Julf and replace it with:

“As this Advice from the GAC is merely a request for the Board to explain its actions, the GNSO Council sees little harm in the Board doing so.”

Julf, any objection to Keith doing this?

Best,
Paul




This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith via council
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 3:36 AM
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org
Subject: [council] GNSO Council Review of ICANN 65 GAC Communique

Hi all,

Attached is the latest and hopefully final version of the Council’s review of the ICANN 65 GAC Communique.

It references and reinforces previous GNSO Council statements on the relevant topics, as the GAC didn’t add anything new in Marrakech.

Thanks to Julf and the other volunteers for their contributions.

Please review. We will have an opportunity to discuss during our Council call this week. The Board and GAC will meet at the end of July, so we need to get this wrapped up soon.

Regards,
Keith


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20190717/714d178d/attachment.html>