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

[Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Great update Heather.

Thank you very much!


Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
_____________________

email: crg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Skype: carlos.raulg
+506 8837 7176 (cel)
+506 4000 2000 (home)
+506 2290 3678 (fax)
_____________________
Apartado 1571-1000
San Jose, COSTA RICA








> On Nov 11, 2015, at 10:32 PM, Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@xxxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
> 
> 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 
> <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,
> 
> Heather
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> Whereas,
> 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.
> The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board 
> substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.
> 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.
> 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 
> 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 
> GNSO. 
> Resolved,
> 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.
> 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 Board.