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

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Fellow Councilors:

Here is my personal take on all this.

As outlined in Chris’ letter:

·         For nearly two years, since October 2014, a Board subgroup has been 
meeting behind closed doors with selected GAC and IGO representatives (which 
have only an advisory role regarding gTLD policy) to discuss differing GNSO and 
GAC recommendations regarding certain protections for IGOs. During this entire 
period the same Board subgroup has engaged in no similar discussions with GNSO 
representatives, even though the GNSO is the policy-making body for gTLDs.

·         During this extended period of closed door discussions with GAC and 
IGO advisors “the Board has not yet been able to consider the substantive 
nature of the GNSO policy recommendations that remain outstanding”. Perhaps 
engaging in parallel discussions with GNSO representatives would have assisted 
such substantive consideration. It is very troubling that a Board subgroup has 
engaged in extended discussions with GAC and IGO representatives when, by its 
own admission, it and the full Board have not yet given substantive 
consideration to the GNSO’s policy recommendations on the same matters.

·         The Board subgroup still has no response to the Council’s letter of 
May 31, 2016, which was nearly a quarter of a year ago -- only a statement that 
“my sense is that we will be in a position to refer the substantive proposals 
to you shortly for your consideration”.

·         When the GNSO finally receives those substantive proposals, 
“suggestions relating to dispute resolution will most likely have to be 
referred to the ongoing IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP”.

Speaking now as Co-Chair of that referenced IGO CRP WG, while GAC and IGO 
participation in that WG has not constituted a full boycott, it has been 
minimal and sporadic despite outreach efforts by both Co-Chairs and ICANN 
policy staff, and certainly far less than GAC and IGO engagement with the Board 
subgroup. Our WG is currently engaged in developing an outline for a draft 
final report and recommendations, which we hope to issue for public comment 
just prior to the ICANN 57 meeting – so the window for considering any 
substantive suggestions from the Board subgroup is rapidly closing, and will 
likely be shut by the end of September (of course, GAC and IGO comments on the 
draft report will be considered).

Again, speaking personally, I believe that the procedure followed by the Board 
in this matter constitutes a good example of how differing positions between 
the GNSO and GAC should not be handled. The Board’s procedure has not been 
even-handed, in that it has engaged in a largely  non-transparent process with 
governmental policy advisors while having no equivalent engagement with those 
private sector/civil society representatives charged with setting policy. Its 
recommendations from those one-sided discussions have not been delivered in a 
timely manner, which has frustrated Council members and may soon make any such 
recommendations irrelevant to the drafting of the IGO CRP WG’s final report and 
recommendations. And, overall, its actions may encourage GAC members and IGOs 
to engage in closed policy discussions with the Board, and thereby undermine 
initiatives taken by the GNSO to encourage early GAC engagement in the 
policy-making process (noting further that even if the GAC does continue to 
better engage in the policy-making process, what has transpired on this matter 
may set a precedent for a “two bites at the apple” approach whereby any PDP 
recommendations that are not to the GAC’s satisfaction can be contested through 
extended closed door, one-sided discussions with the Board).

Summing up, my major concern is not that the Board’s process “has taken a 
longer time than any of us had anticipated”, but that this is not “a 
procedurally sound way to approach resolution of the issue” notwithstanding the 
Board’s belief that it is. There must be a more efficient and even-handed way 
to both consider differing GAC advice while recognizing the lead role of the 
GNSO in setting gTLD policy than what has transpired in this instance.

Thank you for considering my personal views in this matter. I will consult 
further with the BC Excomm prior to any discussion of this matter on our 
September 1st call.

Best, Philip


Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 3:02 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Update from Chris Disspain on the IGO 
protections issue

Dear Councilors,

Please find attached a note from ICANN Board member Chris Disspain that he has 
asked be forwarded to the Council, as a follow up to the discussions that took 
place in Helsinki on the issue of IGO acronym protections.

Thanks and cheers
Mary


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


________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7752 / Virus Database: 4633/12811 - Release Date: 08/15/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.