Re: [council] Summary of GAC Communique advice on IGO & Red Cross protections; mentions of GNSO work on Whois

[David Cake <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 16 Oct 2014, at 11:05 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On IGOs and curative rights:
> The GAC expressly acknowledges that there is an ongoing GNSO PDP on this, and 
> advises that in their view the solution should not be in the form of amending 
> the UDRP and URS. They also state that they welcome continued dialogue with 
> the NGPC and the GNSO to develop concrete solutions. My understanding is that 
> the GAC considers this piece of advice to be part of their effort at early 
> engagement – by providing government’s views to us at an early stage of our 
> PDP for one thing.
        
        Without rationale or explicitly suggesting an alternative, this advice 
is pretty much useless. 

Bret said:
> My personal opinion is that we also are free to ignore the GAC advice 
> entirely, as the advice is directed to the Board. We can and should offer 
> GNSO policy advice on whatever track we believe is best, and then the Board 
> can decide what to do with it


I am in full agreement. We can offer the GAC useful ways to contribute, but we 
can't make them use them. 
If some members of the GAC want to communicate only via one sentence lines in 
the GAC communique, that is like trying to have a conversation with someone who 
will communicate only by putting up billboards. 

        David

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature