ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [council] IGO/RC motion


If I understand Avri’s question correctly, then I am wondering the same. Wasn’t 
the ICANN board supposed to facilitate some sort of dialogue between the GNSO 
and the GAC to reconcile the differences between our recommendations and what 
they have stated are their wishes on this topic? Have I missed that?

It seems to me that if the GAC desires further protections for IGOs/INGOs, then 
it would be helpful if their reasons and arguments supporting this would be 
provided (in some detail) before the PDP WG is asked to reconvene, giving the 
WG members something to work with. In that light, I don’t think a postponement 
of the motion to a later meeting is such a bad thing.



On Jul 23, 2014, at 9:14 PM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi,
> On 23-Jul-14 15:04, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> In as much as the motion and its intended action (to take another look
>> at the protections given ICO and INGOs in the new gTLD program) is as
>> much politics as policy, I don't think delaying the discussion and vote
>> enhances likelihood of passage.  There are voices in the BC who question
>> why we are willing to re-open a decision that was unanimously closed.
> For clarity sake:
> By "decision that was unanimously closed." do you mean the PDP
> recommendations?
> Also, have any new arguments have been offered, or is it just because
> the GAC disagrees with our recommendations.  Something which should not
> come as a surprise since they don't even agree with our standing to make
> recommendations on this topic.
> Fro a process perspective, I think in this case we reopen if we enough
> of the council agrees that we would like to see our recommendations
> amended as suggested by the Board.
> thanks
> avri

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