ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: Re: [council] IGO/RC motion

  • To: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council List" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: Re: [council] IGO/RC motion
  • From: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:05:41 -0700
  • In-reply-to: <529DFC82-38F9-42CC-9ED2-BD7F32355612@egyptig.org>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: MailAPI

Hello, all.
For clarity's sake, my reference to "a decision that was unanimously closed" 
refers to the vote taken on the motion offered at our Buenos Aires meeting for 
the protection of ICO and INGO names.  It was unanimously passed.  As such, it 
should have easily been approved by the Board.  But the GAC advice, offered in 
its normal course, at the end of the policymaking process, diverged.  The Board 
is free to pick one or the other or some variation of each, but to do so 
requires an explanation and, even though the rules allow it, the present act 
and as precedence would be seen as altering the axis balance of ICANN.
It may well be that even if we approve the motion on the table tomorrow, we 
will wind up right back where we are.  But approval would create the 
opportunity for the Council to promote a path forward rather than petition the 
Board for crumbs.  Also as Avri hints in her other question, there seems to be 
no new data or turn of events.  That is why I described the motion being as 
much about politics as policy.
The Council may choose to stand pat (right now I intend to vote for the 
motion), but doing so would accelerate the uncomfortable precedent setting I 
refer to above and give away the chance we have to make it play out in our 
policy arena.  I would be happier with that (even though it might be messy and 
fail) than throwing it over the fence.
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] IGO/RC motion
From: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 7/23/14 4:35 pm
To: "GNSO Council List" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

 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 >>>