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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Jeff. Just for clarification, I suppose you are talking about the PDP 
manual right?

In light of Jeff's comment, we should discuss tomorrow whether we want to keep 
this in the list or not.

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Head of Domain Operations
Group NBT

Le 10 mars 2012 à 23:36, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :

>  
> I have a comment on the topic for the GAC addressing human rights.
>  
> I just want to make sure that we understand what is in the PDP, because I 
> think there may be some interpretations that are being made that were not 
> intended. 
>  
> What the PDP states actually states is:
>  
> The initial report should contain the following elements . . . ."A statement 
> on the WG discussion concerning impact of the proposed recommendations, which 
> could consider areas such as economic, competition, operations, privacy and 
> other rights, scalability and feasibility."
>  
> There was a lot of history to that statement.  The term "rights" was meant to 
> include human rights, intellectual property rights, etc.  But to state that 
> there must be an impact analysis on human rights for all PDPs is not 
> necessarily the case.
>  
> Therefore, I have an issue talking with the GAC about the assessment of the 
> impact of human rights being a requirement of PDP.   It is not a requirement, 
> but it is an area that COULD be considered.
>  
>  
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>  
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
> of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or 
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have 
> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, 
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete 
> the original message.
>  
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 4:07 PM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO
> Subject: [council] Re: Early draft: questions for our sessions with the Board 
> and the GAC tomorrow
>  
> Councillors,
>  
> My thanks to those who have already made comments or sent edits to the list I 
> sent earlier.
>  
> Here is a new version of the list, which includes those comments. I have also 
> added the suggested Board questions to us at the end of the document.
>  
> Stéphane
>  
> 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?
> We expect the Board will amend and submit a revised ICANN proposal that 
> addresses what NTIA says was lacking in the first proposal. Question: will 
> the Council need to undertake any policy development to enable the revised 
> proposal?
> Presenter: Stéphane Van Gelder
>  
> RAA: 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?
> Presenter: Mary Wong
>  
>  
> GAC
> What advice can the GAC give the GNSO about the human rights impact 
> assessment requirements of the PDP in light of the United Nations Human 
> Rights Councils recent HRC Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet?
> For more background see reports about the Geneva Human Rights Council Session:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CnrqLUZ4hpEaCD_kxC0-FRTL_f8Hu_cKbxYT9fktj5E/edit?pli=1#
>  
> http://www.ccianet.org/index.asp?bid=89&BlogEntryID=224&FormID=300&catid=0
>  
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-j-black/uns-itu-could-become-next_b_1332768.html
> 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?
> Another question (Wendy): 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.
> Presenter: Mason Cole
>  
>  
> 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.
>  
>  
>  
> Possible questions from the Board:
>  
> What will be in your view the medium-term impact of the new gTLD program on 
> the structure of ICANN in general, and challenges it brings to the gNSO, its 
> constituencies and policy development process. What are the potential issues 
> and how to anticipate them?"  this I s a question they would like to have all 
> parts of the community starting to consider.  
>  
> Another question is: What is the view on the need for stronger protections 
> against defensive registrations at the second level, and a shift to WHOIS 
> data authentication at time of data submission?
>  
> Resolution of conflict with NPOC.
>  
> What is the Council's mid-term policy development calendar?
>