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

[Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.:-)
Stephanie
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,
>
>
> 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,
>
>  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 GNSO.
>
> Resolved,
>
>  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.