ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] FW: Request to post - GAC/GNSO joint meeting


Please do NOT post Glen.  I need to get feedback from Janis before it is 
finalized.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
        Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 9:53 AM
        To: Council GNSO
        Subject: [council] FW: Request to post - GAC/GNSO joint meeting
        
        

         

         

        Forwarded From: Rosemary To: Gomes, Chuck; William Drake; Glen de Saint 
Géry; Stéphane Van Gelder; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; Glen de Saint Géry; Cavalli, Olga
        Subject: Request to post - GAC/GNSO joint meeting

         

        Glen
        
        I think I have made the right changes - 2am here - would youpost this 
doc for me pls?
        
        Cheers
        
        Rosemary
        
        
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
        Sent: Thu 2/18/2010 1:16 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; William Drake; Glen de Saint Géry; Rosemary Sinclair; 
Stéphane Van Gelder; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; Glen de Saint Géry; Cavalli, Olga
        Subject: RE: Drafting team to prepare for the GAC/GNSO joint meeting
        
        Here's the redline version I sent earlier in the week.  If no one 
objects, let's post a clean version of this and send it to the Council ASAP.
        
        Glen - Can you do that?  If someone want to make changes, please do so. 
 I am about to head to the airport so will not be able to do much for a few 
hours.  Don't wait for me.
        
        Chuck
        
        
        ________________________________
        
                From: Gomes, Chuck
                Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 8:23 AM
                To: William Drake; Glen de Saint Géry; Rosemary Sinclair; 
Stéphane Van Gelder; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; Glen de Saint Géry; Cavalli, Olga
                Subject: RE: Drafting team to prepare for the GAC/GNSO joint 
meeting
               
               
                I proposed a final version and was waiting for feedback from 
others on this list.  If you are okay with what I did, please distribute it 
Bill in Rosemary's absence (she is not available until Thursday her time).  If 
not, make any changes and send it.
                
                I am traveling today and will have limited email access.
                
                Chuck
        
        
        ________________________________
        
                        From: William Drake 
[mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
                        Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 6:58 AM
                        To: Gomes, Chuck; Glen de Saint Géry; Rosemary 
Sinclair; Stéphane Van Gelder; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; Glen de Saint Géry; Cavalli, 
Olga
                        Subject: Re: Drafting team to prepare for the GAC/GNSO 
joint meeting
                       
                       
                        This is on the agenda for tomorrow's call, shouldn't we 
send it to the Council to see prior?
                       
        
                                               
                                               
        
                                                1. New gTLD Implementation &EOI
                                                Discussion of any specific and 
actionable recommendations on, for example:
                                                *any remaining concerns with 
respect to geographic & property protections
                                                *the utility of the studies 
proposed by the GAC, and the foreseen negative effects if they are not 
completed pre-launch
                                                *how categorization could 
work[Gomes, Chuck]  I know there are some in the GAC, in particular Bertrand, 
who still are pushing this, but I don't think it has much of chance to be 
considered so I think it would be a poor use of time and could take a lot of 
time as well.  If they bring it up, we cannot avoid that but I would not 
recommend we bring it up.
                                                *desirable fee structures
                                                *desired timeline for the roll 
out of new gTLDs
        
                                I was listing topics GAC has raised as 
indicators of the pool from which we could draw.  Obviously there won't be able 
to discuss all of these irrespective of whether there are two topics or three.  
In that context, I didn't think it was up to us to judge which we considered 
meritorious or likely to go anywhere, as some government might object to us 
pruning.  But if people think doing so is ok in terms of sensitivities and 
optics, fine by me.
        
        
                                                2.  Affirmation of Commitments
                                                Discussion of perspectives on:
                                                *the meaning of public interest 
in relation to ICANN's identity and mission
                                                *the operationalization of 
public interest standards in relation to the work programs of ICANN's various 
bodies
                                                *specific accountability and 
transparency considerations with respect to GNSO's policy dev process
        
                                                3.  ICANN in the Wider 
International Environment
                                                Discussion of the relationship 
to ICANN in general and to GAC policies and principles in particular of:
                                                *the ongoing intergovernmental 
discussions (e.g. in the ITU and CSTD[Gomes, Chuck]  what is CSTD )
        
                                The UN Commission on Science and Technology for 
Development http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=2696
                               
        
                                                concerning Enhanced Cooperation 
on Globally Applicable Public Policy Principles
                                                *the various other proposals 
that have been advanced in the ITU and could be taken up by its October 2010 
Plenipotentiary Conference concerning, e.g. the provision of registry services, 
the harmonization and coordination of ccTLD policies, internationalized domain 
names, the interface between international laws and treaties and Internet 
governance, security and stability, dispute resolution,  and so on
        
        
                                I cut nondiscrimination, that's more about 
traffic than ICANN
        
                                Shall we send this to council and get some 
feedback?
        
        
        
        



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>