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

["Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

All

I'm not so sure we want to wade too far in on the visa issue and largely agree 
with Stephanie that we should stick to our remit.  I think we should also 
recognise that ICANN meetings have state-of-the-art remote participation 
capabilities and while we can't do anything to get over the challenges of 
timezones, ICANN does make best-efforts to ensure participation whether it be 
in person or remotely.

I think Markus Kummer responded to a question about visa availability during 
the public forum and noted that obtaining visas is not just an ICANN issue but 
is an issue for most UN meetings and is largely unsolvable. The visa issue was 
also the source of a lot of discussion in the Meeting Strategy Working Group 
and formed part of a number of the recommendations

IX. RECOMMENDATIONS ON MEETING SUPPORT AND ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES:

·         ICANN meeting planning team should continue to focus on ease of 
securing visas as a criterion in
evaluating meeting locations. The MSWG recognizes the problem related to visas 
for attendees and
recommends existing procedures be improved to enhance collaboration with the 
relevant
Government and local hosts while maintaining the open enrollment and 
registration policies of the
meetings.

·         Steps should also be taken to keep track of recurring attendees to 
support easing of future visa
attainment for attendees.

·         The MSWG does not recommend requiring ICANN secure a local host for 
ICANN meetings, but
does recommend that ICANN continue to encourage a multi-stakeholder local host 
structure.
This support does not have to be financial in nature but with support for 
events, contacts with
local government and media contacts, and support in the effort to secure visa 
letters is
recognized as a benefit and should be continued.

XII. ADDITIONAL ELEMENT REGARDING THE VISA ISSUE
Visa delivery to some ICANN community members has been an issue in certain 
countries hosting the
ICANN meeting. It made some elected members of SO/AC leadership miss important 
meetings where they
had crucial roles to play.

ICANN meeting planning team should continue to focus on ease of securing visas 
as criteria in evaluating
meeting locations.

The aim is not to waive or change the visa procedure of the host country; it is 
more making the necessary
arrangements so that the so-called procedure becomes accessible and doable for 
all community
members in full respect of the host country laws and rules.

There will always be someone who will not be able to get the visa because 
he/she has a personal issues;
the goal is to make the number of such persons as low as possible, and be sure 
that the restriction
doesn't concern a region, country, race or religion.

The full report can be found here:
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/recommendations-25feb14-en.pdf

Thanks

Donna


Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc.
Policy and Industry Affairs Manager
Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: 
donna.austin@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:donna.austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>

________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message.
Follow Neustar:   [cid:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0]  
Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc>   
[cid:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0]  
LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349>   
[cid:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0]  Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar>
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.



From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin
Sent: Thursday, 12 November 2015 9:21 AM
To: Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@xxxxxxxxxx>; 
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>; 
'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; David (dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) 
(dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Re: GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communique Template

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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_resolutions-2320151021-2D1&d=CwMD-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=ft3m190yqI7BGln9mZqDuH4_DqE-bzlALYFIX2SCwak&s=rx2Pd-yfIFJhGvp-YyUstS223Au_nrfsvQxawmHwEYk&e=>)
 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<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf 
of Stephanie Perrin 
<stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 10:46
To: gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
Marika Konings; 'Volker Greimann'; David 
(dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>) 
(dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>); 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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.