Re: [council] Early draft: questions for our sessions with theBoard and the GAC tomorrow

[<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'd like to revise the RAA question to the Board and suggest one on the topic 
for the GAC:

Board - The Board's Dakar resolution requested an Issue Report for a PDP "as 
quickly as possible" to address "remaining items that may be suited for a PDP" 
relating to the RAA. Given that negotiations are ongoing on certain topics 
between ICANN staff and the Registrars Stakeholder Group, and that the Final 
Report on the RAA was just issued (on which the Council will be expected to 
act) is it the Board's expectation that the time frame and specific topics for 
a PDP will be dependent on the duration and outcome of the negotiations? What 
is the Board's view on the relationship between the scope of the topics to be 
negotiated directly and that for a PDP, especially as regards topics that may 
be considered policy matters?

GAC - On the RAA negotiations, the ICANN Board passed a resolution in Dakar 
requesting a GNSO  Issue Report for a PDP "as quickly as possible" regarding 
"remaining items suited for a PDP". The Report has been completed, and the GNSO 
Council will be expected to discuss it and possibly act on it. To assist us in 
evaluating whether and how to conduct a PDP, can the GAC give us some sense of 
how they believe the RAA process is going, and what they believe remains 
necessary to address?

All edits and suggestions are welcome. Rejection is okay too " I'll live :}

Cheers
Mary

"Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>" <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Sub-question to the GAC discussion on RAA: How can the GNSO engage the
GAC in discussion about the LEA recommendations, such as verification
and regulations on privacy/proxy providers, so that the negotiations
reflect realistic options from the viewpoint of the community?  We need
to have these discussions in parallel, rather than having an
unacceptable agreement come back to Council and be rejected on Policy
grounds.

--Wendy

On 03/10/2012 02:37 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> Board
> 
> Red Cross and Olympic Committee names: the GNSO is getting mixed messages 
> from the Board and Staff. What exactly is expected of the GNSO in terms of 
> policy development? If we send you a mtion this week, will you act on it?
> 
> Presenter: Alan Greenberg
> 
>  
> 
> WHOIS RT final report recommendation implementation: a discussion of the 
> policy issues here versus the expectations that some may have that these 
> recommendations could be implemented straight away.
> 
> Presenter: Jeff Neuman
> 
>  
> 
> IANA contract: can you provide any further information on this?
> 
> Presenter: Stéphane Van Gelder
> 
>  
> 
> RAA: under what circumstances will the Board request the GNSO initiate a PDP 
> on this topic?
> 
> Presenter: Mary Wong
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> GAC
> 
> What are the GAC member's view on The PDP process includes a specific 
> component to ensure freedom of expression.
> 
> Presenter: Joy Liddicoat
> 
>  
> 
> RAA: Update from registrars. Why does the GAC think pushing for Whois 
> verification will resolve cybercrime, and will you push for the same level of 
> verification for all TLDs worldwide, including ccTLDs?
> 
> Presenter: Mason Cole
> 

Sub-question: How can the GNSO engage the GAC in discussion about the
LEA recommendations, such as verification and regulations on
privacy/proxy providers, so that the negotiations reflect realistic
options from the viewpoint of the community?
> 
>  
> 
> General suggestion from Jonathan Robinson
> 
> There are issues within each of these topics that we have grappled with and 
> we would like to have a discussion with you on those issues.

-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx +1 914-374-0613
Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/