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

["Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Good point.  It seems to me that we could phrase it more along the following
lines:

 

Is the GAC aware of the recent HRC Panel on Freedom of expression and the
Internet?

If so, and in any event, it has come to the attention of the GNSO Council
and we were interested to hear GAC views on this.

In particular, an HR impact assessment may well provide a very different
perspective on any given PDP process (relative to say LEA, IP perspectives).

The GNSO view is that this is something that could be considered in future.

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: 10 March 2012 16:37
To: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] Re: Early draft: questions for our sessions with the
Board and the GAC tomorrow

 

 

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_cKbxYT9fkt
j5E/edit?pli=1#
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CnrqLUZ4hpEaCD_kxC0-FRTL_f8Hu_cKbxYT9fk
tj5E/edit?pli=1> 

 

http://www.ccianet.org/index.asp?bid=89
<http://www.ccianet.org/index.asp?bid=89&BlogEntryID=224&FormID=300&catid=0>
&BlogEntryID=224&FormID=300&catid=0

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-j-black/uns-itu-could-become-next_b_133
2768.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?