ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@xxxxxxxxxx>, "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: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:20:52 -0500
  • Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
  • In-reply-to: <SG2PR06MB11984E3C05D618BA1E702AF5CF120@SG2PR06MB1198.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <D25FB904.50D1A%marika.konings@icann.org>,<56413048.5020607@mail.utoronto.ca> <SG2PR06MB11984E3C05D618BA1E702AF5CF120@SG2PR06MB1198.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
  • Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0

Thanks so much for this Heather, very useful. I will try to get this into an amended report, which I will circulate prior to our next meeting....not sure what the protocol is for making amendments to the one that made it in by the deadline, and my apologies for not circulating the draft in time to get all your valuable input. I was going to helpfully suggest how the GAC folks might ameliorate their visa problem (it is , after all, up to them to decide whether their meeting is an official one or not) but figured we had better stick to our remit.:-)
On 15-11-11 11:32 PM, Heather Forrest 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) 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
 2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the
    ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level
 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
 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 GNSO.


 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 Board.

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