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

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

And if recent history is any judge, the Board will send our work back to us 
unless/until it aligns with the GAC initial position.

Thank you,

J.
____________
James Bladel
GoDaddy

On Oct 16, 2014, at 12:31 PM, Bret Fausett 
<bret@xxxxxxxx<mailto:bret@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:

I should also note that the GAC has opined on the work of the GNSO on new 
gTLDs, with this:

"The review processes should be conducted and finalised before policy for the 
further gTLD rounds is developed and should include community-?wide engagement 
on the issues of 6 communication to and access by developing countries and 
regions, and all aspects of the framework for community-?based gTLDs."

This is directly relevant to the work of the new gTLD discussion group. Note 
that they used the word "developed" and not "begun," so I read this to say that 
we can begin our work, so long as we do not establish policy until that policy 
can take account of the reports from the other review processes.

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 don't think we will need to reach that kind of confrontation, 
however, as I expect that the other review processes will complete well before 
the end of any PDP process that we initiate next year.

    Bret

--
Bret Fausett, Esq. * General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc.
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 * Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536
310-496-5755 (T) * 310-985-1351 (M) * bret@xxxxxxxx<mailto:bret@xxxxxxxx>