[council] Fwd: GAC on Proxy

[Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This will be on our table at the meeting with the GAC

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>  
> AFRICAN UNION COMMISSION: I'M JUST WONDERING IF THIS IS THE RIGHT PLACE TO 
> BRING THIS UP, BUT AS YOU'RE  AWARE, THE GNSO HAVE RELEASED THE FINAL REPORT 
> ON PRIVACY AND PROXY SERVICES ACCREDITATION ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE 
> ICANN BOARD.IF YOU RECALL, THE GAC HAD PROVIDED COMMENTS THAT WERE PREPARED 
> BY THE PSWG LAST YEAR IN SEPTEMBER , ENDORSED AND APPROVED BY THE GAC.NOW, 
> WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS REPORT, A NUMBER OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE GAC 
> HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.  AND CONSIDERING THAT THE BOARD IS 
> MEANT TO BE CONSIDERING THIS REPORT, I'M WONDERING WHETHER WE MAY WANT TO 
> FLAG THIS AS SOMETHING THAT WE MAY WANT TO THINK ABOUT, PROVIDING ADVICE TO 
> THE BOARD, PARTICULARLY ON THE ISSUE OF DISTINCTION, ENSURING DISTINCTION 
> BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND NONCOMMERCIAL USERS.SO JUST A QUESTION AND SOMETHING 
> TO FLAG
>  
> CHAIR SCHNEIDER:   THANK YOU,  ALICE, FOR RAISING THIS.  IN FACT, WE HAVE 
> JUST RECEIVED A LETTER THAT -- FROM THE BOARD ON THIS ISSUE, AND WE MAY USE 
> -- WE DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH TIME, BUT WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME ON 
> WEDNESDAY ALLOCATED TO THE WORKING GROUPS.  AND SINCE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS 
> ARE COMING OUT OF THE WORKING GROUP, AND THEY HAVEN'T BEEN REFLECTED IN THAT 
> REPORT, IF WE DON'T HAVE TIME NOW, BUT IF PEOPLE AGREE, WE MAY START THINKING 
> ABOUT IF THE GAC WISHES TO REFLECT THIS IN THE COMMUNIQUE, THAT WE DO THIS ON 
> WEDNESDAY SO THAT WE CAN REFER TO THIS INPUT FROM THE GAC IN OUR COMMUNIQUE.I 
> THINK WE SHOULD THEN SLOWLY MOVE  ON, BUT I HAVE IRAN ON THIS ISSUE.  THANK 
> YOU.
>  
> >>IRAN:   THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.  NO PROBLEM TO PUT IT IN THE COMMUNIQUE, 
> BUT MY QUESTION IS THAT IN THIS -- CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THIS, WE MAKE A 
> COMMENT, AND THIS COMMENT IS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE RECOMMENDATION, 
> GOES TO ICANN  FOR CONSIDERATION.  PERHAPS WE COULD RAISE THE ISSUE WITH 
> ICANN AS WELL, EITHER IN A MEETING WE HAVE WITH THE BOARD OR OTHER.  SO IT 
> WAS MENTIONED DURING THE CCWG THAT THIS SORT OF INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE GAC 
> AND THE GNSO AND OTHERS COMMUNITY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED IN APPROPRIATE  
> MANNER.  BUT WE SEE THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN, SO WE HAVE TO RAISE IT IN ORDER TO 
> ENABLE THE BOARD TO MAKE NECESSARY DECISION THAT ARE APPROPRIATE.  AND IF OUR 
> COMMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, EITHER THEY ARE CONVINCED OUR 
> COMMENTS ARE NOT RELEVANT OR OUR COMMENTS SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.THANK 
> YOU
>  
> ;CHAIR SCHNEIDER:   THANK YOU, KAVOUSS.  THIS IS ACTUALLY A GOOD PROPOSAL.  
> WE CAN ACTUALLY RAISE IT IN SEVERAL OCCASIONS.  QT HE IS WHAT DO WE WANT?  WE 
> CAN RAISE IT DIRECTLY WITH THE GNSO, BECAUSE WE HAVE A MEETING WITH THEM.  WE 
> CAN RAISE IT WITH THE DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD AND/OR WE CAN PUT IT 
> IN....>> AT ALL.  WITH EVERYBODY.>>
>  
> CHAIR SCHNEIDER:   BUT THE QUESTION IS WHAT DO WE THINK IS BEST.  MAYBE SINCE 
> WE HAVE THE DISCUSSION WITH THE GNSO FIRST, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN -- UMM, YES, 
> THAT'S TOMORROW AFTERNOON.  WE MAY ACTUALLY THINK OF RAISING THAT ISSUE IN 
> OUR EXCHANGE WITH THE GNSO AND ASK THEM WHY THEY DIDN'T TAKE THIS INTO 
> ACCOUNT FOR A RATIONALE FOR THEIR DECISION.  AND THEN WE CAN STILL SEE WITH 
> THE PREPARATION FOR THE BOARD WHETHER WE WANT TO RAISE IT WITH THE BOARD 
> AGAIN, HOW WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED.  IS THAT OKAY?I SEE PEOPLE -- THANK 
> YOU.OTHER COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS?  IF THAT'S NOT THE CASE, THEN I THINK WE 
> SHOULD USE THE TIME AND GO BACK TO THE KEY ITEM.  
> )</textformat></flashrichtext>
>  
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
> Mclean, VA 22102, United States
> E: jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> or 
> jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> T: +1.703.635.7514
> M: +1.202.549.5079
> @Jintlaw