Re: [council] GAC on Proxy

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi David.

I agree that we can expect to discuss this topic on Sunday, and have asked the 
co-chairs (Steve and Graeme) to provide their thoughts prior to our session 
with the GAC.

Thank you,

J.
____________
James Bladel
GoDaddy

On Mar 5, 2016, at 17:33, David Cake 
<dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

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<mailto: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