Re: Fwd: [council] GAC on Proxy

[David Cake <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I’m sure the WG Chairs would be happy to help formulate a response. 

The input from the GAC was, of course, considered (despite coming in quite late 
in the process). The WG simply came to different conclusions, in part due to 
very strong public comment (in the tens of thousands) expressing the opposite 
opinion on the issue of distinction mentioned here. 


David



> On 5 Mar 2016, at 5:17 PM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 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.
>>  
>> &gt;&gt;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....&gt;&gt; AT ALL.  WITH EVERYBODY.&gt;&gt;
>>  
>> 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
>