RE: [council] For your review - GNSO Review of GAC Communique Hyderabad

["Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul

Notwithstanding your discussions with Michele and Rubens, I have received some 
suggested alternate text from the RySG for consideration, specifically as it 
relates to the following sentences:

Paul McGrady text:
Some contracted parties to ICANN have or are in the process of developing a 
number of “best practices” initiatives related to registry and registrar 
operations. ICANN is responsible for setting standards for abuse reporting and 
performance when determining compliance with contractual obligations.

RySG alternative text:
Contracted parties, either through the respective Stakeholder Groups or other 
avenues, have or are in the process of developing a number of ‘best practice’ 
initiatives related registry and registrar operations. ICANN is not a regulator 
and, while it has responsibility to manage its contracts, it is not appropriate 
for one party to unilaterally define the standards for reporting enforcement.

In addition, I also wonder whether it would be worthwhile raising your concerns 
about the use of the term “advice” as an overarching issue in the covering 
transmission letter to the Board? It seems important enough to warrant such 
elevation.

Look forward to your response.

Donna

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 12:11 PM
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] For your review - GNSO Review of GAC Communique Hyderabad

Hi All,

The IPC has had a chance to consider the draft language for Section 2 and 
propose the following (heavily) edited draft response:

___________________________
The GNSO Council would like to express concern that the list of questions set 
out in Annex 1 has been categorised as “advice”.  In this context, the term 
“advice” ought to be given its ordinary dictionary meaning, and a request to 
the Board to provide various data and information does not constitute “GAC 
Advice”, as this term is used in the ICANN Bylaws.  Since GAC Advice has a 
specific status and treatment under the under the ICANN Bylaws, precision of 
terminology is crucial to avoid any perception that there is an attempt to 
direct the Board, rather than making a request for information and attempting 
to impose a reasonable deadline for its provision.  That said, the GNSO Council 
looks forward to reviewing ICANN’s responses to the questions listed in Annex 1 
to the Communiqué.   Some contracted parties to ICANN have or are in the 
process of developing a number of “best practices” initiatives related to 
registry and registrar operations. ICANN is responsible for setting standards 
for abuse reporting and performance when determining compliance with 
contractual obligations. The issue of DNS Abuse Mitigation raised by the GAC 
may also be dealt with by the GNSO in GNSO PDP Working Groups, producing 
relevant Consensus Policy recommendations then duly adopted by the Board.  
Further, the issue of DNS Abuse Mitigation raised by the GAC is dealt with by 
the GNSO as the issue arises, whether it be various active and/or open projects 
on the Projects 
List<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_meetings_projects-2Dlist-2D28nov16-2Den.pdf&d=DgMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=b_o3-i0H2nKfE3BqYDYucWO1-3N1E4XVLXqlYXkqZ4Y&s=OnENUeYwFCPLqmH6BhL_VfSwze9IjfPBwZtjrj6smAM&e=>,
 or as part of GNSO Policy 
Activities<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_policy&d=DgMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=b_o3-i0H2nKfE3BqYDYucWO1-3N1E4XVLXqlYXkqZ4Y&s=DAh8dGjoP-HlunMGgxErthrt2L98OaFx7eNjhl28kT4&e=>.
___________________________

I'm very happy to discuss the rationale for these proposed changes.

Best,
Paul


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] For your review - GNSO Review of GAC Communique
Hyderabad
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thu, December 08, 2016 11:48 am
To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Dear All,

Please find attached for your review the proposed GNSO Review of the GAC 
Communique. This draft has been developed by the small drafting team that was 
formed at ICANN57 consisting of Donna Austin, James Bladel, Heather Forrest, 
Phil Corwin, Michele Neylon, Paul McGrady and Carlos Guttierez. Please share 
any comments and/or input you may have with the mailing list. Consideration of 
this document is also on the agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 15 December.

Best regards,

Marika

Marika Konings
Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for 
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>

Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive 
courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DgMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=b_o3-i0H2nKfE3BqYDYucWO1-3N1E4XVLXqlYXkqZ4Y&s=dNjsiuWO3xdzLW4v1BH88xcBii9uiGCBDGesqG9gB7I&e=>
 and visiting the GNSO Newcomer 
pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DgMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=b_o3-i0H2nKfE3BqYDYucWO1-3N1E4XVLXqlYXkqZ4Y&s=gtfl9Z6dWYQL3zTtk15ezDF16TnJlbluKDGvMZg5xaE&e=>.