Re: [council] FOR REVIEW: IGO acronyms - differences between GNSO policy, GAC advice and the small group proposal

[Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Paul and everyone,

In light of questions about the “small group”, staff thought it might be 
helpful to compile the timeline of the group’s formation and work for your 
reference.

February 2014: Board resolution acknowledges receipt of GNSO PDP 
recommendations, requests more time, directs NGPC to develop proposal for 
further consideration

March 2014 (ICANN49, Singapore): Initial NGPC proposal sent to the GAC and 
forwarded to GNSO Council

June 2014 – January 2015: Correspondence between the NGPC and GNSO Council 
regarding NGPC request that the GNSO consider modifying its original 
recommendations (in September, Chris Disspain also meets with the GNSO Council)

October 2014 (ICANN51, Los Angeles): small group is formed; its existence is 
mentioned during the GAC-GNSO joint meeting

June 2015 (ICANN53, GAC Communique from Buenos Aires): GAC acknowledges 
continuing discussions between the NGPC, GAC and IGOs (GAC Chairs also meet 
with the GNSO Curative Rights PDP Working Group co-chairs at this meeting)

July 2015: small group representatives meet face to face (except for this, most 
interactions are correspondence and document exchanges)

October 2015 (ICANN54, GAC Communique from Dublin): GAC requests Board to 
facilitate timely resolution of small group work (in November, Chris and Thomas 
Schneider also do an update call with several GNSO representatives)

March 2016 (ICANN55, GAC Communique from Marrakech): GAC acknowledges that GNSO 
is part of the continuing discussions and hopes for resolution of the issue

May 2016: GNSO Council letter requests further input from the Board

June 2016 (ICANN56, GAC Communique from Helsinki): GAC notes ongoing work of 
the small group (the small group also meets informally)

October 2016: Small group proposal delivered to ICANN Board, forwarded to GNSO 
Council and GAC 

The Council may also wish to note the email update that was provided to the 
Council by Chris in late August 
(https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/disspain-to-gnso-council-22aug16-en.pdf).
 

Thanks and cheers
Mary 


On 10/12/16, 11:42, "owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Paul McGrady" 
<owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    
    Thank you Bruce.  Sounds like an august group.  Glad to hear that Mason and 
Donna were involved from on the GNSO side and that WIPO was at the table as 
well.
    
    
    Best,
    Paul
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
    Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 5:30 AM
    To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Subject: RE: [council] FOR REVIEW: IGO acronyms - differences between GNSO 
policy, GAC advice and the small group proposal
    
    
    Hello Paul,
    
    >>  Also, apologies if this has been asked & answered, but I didn’t see a 
list of participants in the “small group” that the Board references.  Do we 
know who those members are?
    
    The group was formed in October 2014.
    
    
    I don’t have names of individuals but it seems to have consisted of:
    
    - representatives from the IGO coalition that first raised the issue and 
who participate in the GAC as observers (including the OECD, WIPO and the UN); 
    
    - the GAC Chair, 
    
    - and Board representatives from the new gTLD program committee that was in 
place at the time this issue came to light  (primarily Chris Disspain). 
    
    I gather  a few others attended some of the meetings as well - e.g. Donna 
Austin and Mason Cole.
    
    The group is not decisional - just an ad-hoc group formed to see if they 
could come up with a proposal that they thought would be acceptable to the 
GNSO.   
    
    Regards,
    
    Bruce Tonkin