Re: [council] FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Update from Chris Disspain on the IGO protections issue

[Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Julf and everyone,

I can’t speak for Chris, so please let us know if you have follow up questions 
for him. However, perhaps the following staff observation can be helpful. 

During the discussion between the Council and the Board in Helsinki, several 
Board members were quite clear that the Board is not the place where 
substantive policy decisions are made – rather, when different parts of the 
community come up with different advice, it’s for the Board to facilitate 
bringing the groups’ positions together rather than just deciding which 
position to adopt based on the Board’s own wishes. In other words, they see the 
Board as helping to frame the discussion going forward rather than coming up 
with its own policy.

If, ultimately, there is no resolution of the conflict and the Board is faced 
with different and inconsistent advice, there are specific processes in the 
Bylaws for the Board to use in proceeding with next steps. For instance, the 
Bylaws provide for certain mechanisms if the Board rejects GAC advice on the 
one hand, and other mechanisms if on the other hand the Board rejects GNSO 
policy recommendations. I believe these alternatives were outlined by Chris in 
Helsinki as well. 

While the GAC has already issued its advice on the matter, there is still a 
possibility that the GNSO may modify its policy should it decide it is 
justified and appropriate to do so (for which the applicable GNSO process is 
documented in the PDP Manual). In addition, the GNSO’s IGO-INGO Curative Rights 
PDP has yet to be completed. Assuming the GNSO does not change its policy 
recommendations and the Curative Rights PDP recommendations are also different 
from GAC advice, the Board will then have to decide whether to adopt the GAC 
advice or the GNSO policy – which would not be the case if the inconsistencies 
between the GAC and the GNSO recommendations are reconciled.

I hope this is helpful. The transcript of the GNSO-Board discussion in Helsinki 
can be found here: 
https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-gnso-board-27jun16-en.pdf. 

Cheers
Mary


Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
Telephone: +1-603-5744889



On 8/22/16, 17:18, "owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Johan Helsingius" 
<owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of julf@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

    
    In the note from Chris Disspain, he on one hand states
    "As we noted in Helsinki, this would be the appropriate next
    step since the GNSO is responsible for gTLD policy development",
    so he acknowledges that the GNSO is indeed responsible for gTLD
    policy development, but then continues with "The outcome of the
    GNSO’s deliberations will then be considered by the Board in its
    determination of whether it will accept the GNSO’s recommendations
    as consistent with GAC advice or not."
    
    So what happens (procedurally) if the Board does not accept the
    GNSO recommendations as "consistent with GAC advice"?
    
        Julf