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

["Mason Cole" <mcole@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I prefer not to, with due respect to Mary.  The answer to the question I 
believe is already known by the existence of the consultations tomorrow.  I'm 
sure the GAC will also feel compelled to comment on the new RAA draft when it's 
published.  The RrSG has had a pretty extensive set of discussions around 
understanding GAC's desired outcomes, so my belief is this has been thoroughly 
vetted.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Sat 3/10/2012 2:16 PM
To: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Early draft: questions for our sessions with 
theBoard and the GAC tomorrow
 

Mason, as you will be carrying this topic with the GAC, does this make sense to 
you?

Stéphane



Le 10 mars 2012 à 23:14, <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> Hi Stephane,
> 
> May I suggest that the GAC question I drafted be incorporated into Mason's 
> and Wendy's questions? For instance, there are similar themes between Wendy 
> and my suggestions.
> 
> Thanks!!
> Mary
> 
> "Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>" 
> <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
>