ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [council] Re: GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communique Template

  • To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Volker Greimann'" <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David (dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) (dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Re: GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communique Template
  • From: Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 04:32:21 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • In-reply-to: <56413048.5020607@mail.utoronto.ca>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <D25FB904.50D1A%marika.konings@icann.org>,<56413048.5020607@mail.utoronto.ca>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
  • Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
  • Thread-index: AQHRG0jzf5yBv6hHF0yVwJOKbI04dZ6XxhKI
  • Thread-topic: [council] Re: GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communique Template

Dear Stephanie,

Many thanks for your willingness to produce this first draft of Council's 
response. Paul McGrady and I will discuss further with our IPC colleagues to 
provide input from the constituency as a whole, but in the meantime, I'll try 
to contribute from a more general perspective.

1. gTLD Safeguards: Current Rounds - We should update the third column ('If 
yes, is it subject to existing....) to be most current, which is that the 
Preliminary Issue Report was published on 21 August and the public comment 
period on that Report closed on 30 October. Marika or Mary will be in the best 
position to advise as to timing of GNSO policy development next steps for this 
third and also the fourth column.

Also under this point, the harmonized methodology for reporting (page 3), if we 
refer to the work on metrics, it would be helpful to point directly to 
Council's recent approval 
(http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20151021-1) of the 
Recommendations set out in the Final Report of the DMPM WG. I wasn't a member 
of this WG but if any Councillors (or failing that, Jonathan Zuck, as he has 
led the WG and been providing Council with updates) can offer insight as to 
whether this issue of GAC Advice Board scorecard can be dealt with in the 
framework of what the DMPM WG recommends, that would also be helpful 
information for the Board to insert here.

2.  Future gTLD Rounds - Is the text in the third column ('If yes, is it 
subject to existing....) intended to refer to the Preliminary Issue Report on 
New gTLD Subsequent Procedures? If so, this should be updated, as it was 
published on 21 August and the public comment period closed on 30 October. In 
column 3 we should specifically identify the many ongoing GNSO policy 
development-related work, including: (I'm counting on others to help fill in 
the gaps if I miss any here, as there are many things ongoing relating to 
future round/s)

-   Competition, Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice (CCT) Metrics/Review (here is 
an excellent opportunity to make it known to the Board that the GNSO is very 
keen to have a sufficient number of representatives on this Review to ensure 
the full range of GNSO stakeholder perspectives are able to contribute).

- RPM and TMCH Reviews

- CWG Country and Territory Names (It would be helpful to highlight that this 
WG is referred to in the GAC communique as belonging to the ccNSO, but it is in 
fact a CWG chartered by both the ccNSO and GNSO. We could push the point that 
it is therefore important that the GAC liaise with both SOs on this CWG's work; 
in short, the GNSO must be involved in these interactions.)

-Others I have forgotten?

3. Protection for IGOs - Phil Corwin is best placed to correct me if I'm wrong, 
but I understood from our Saturday update in Dublin that Professor Edward 
Swaine, George Washington University Faculty of Law, has been appointed to 
advise on sovereign immunity issues. The PDP will resume work once Professor 
Swaine’s advice is received.

4. CPE - I defer to others for input on this one, as I don't know of anything 
to add.

5. Use of 2-letter Country Codes and Country Names - Donna's input about RySG's 
work here raises a good point, which is that as we move forward with the 
concept of this document, we should put into place some sort of processes 
whereby the various SGs and Cs can provide input to the drafter of the document.

6. Visas - We might usefully note here (Marika and Glen are likely best to 
offer input) that the GNSO Council also suffers from this problem. We may have 
statistics or records as to how many Councillors have not been able to attend 
recent meetings due to visa issues. This type of hard data could be very useful 
to the Board.

Best wishes,


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of 
Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 10:46
To: gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Marika Konings; 'Volker Greimann'; David 
(dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) (dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx); council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Re: GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communique Template

Colleagues, attached is a draft review of the Dublin GAC communique.  I would 
appreciate your input and discussion on a couple of the items, where our 
proposed response seems to me rather unclear.
A proposed motion folllows.  Thanks to Marika for her help on this task.
Stephanie Perrin

Adoption of the GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board


  1.  The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of 
public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's 
activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It 
usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of 
every ICANN meeting.
  2.  The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN 
Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.
  3.  The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on 
issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to 
inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or 
future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice 
provided by the GAC.
  4.  The GNSO Council developed a template to facilitate this process, which 
was completed following the publication of the Dublin GAC Communiqué by a 
volunteer and shared with the GNSO Council for its review
  5.  The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC 
Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of 
information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the 


  1.  The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communiqué and 
requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Dublin 
GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
  2.  Following the communication to the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council requests 
that the GNSO Council Chair informs the GAC Chair as well as the GAC-GNSO 
Consultation Group of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN 

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