RE: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local law

["Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,



Apologies for not recalling the status of this discussion. Do we have an action 
item to revisit this?



Thanks,

Keith



From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 6:01 PM
To: Paul McGrady; 'Susan Kawaguchi'; 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local 
law



Hi Paul –



I’m open to postponing this work item, but if I recall from our 30 SEP meeting, 
we were going to use the opportunity in Hyderabad to catch up with some folks 
expected to be in attendance.   This may no longer be possible, give the late 
changes to the ICANN57 schedule.


What do others think?

Thanks—

J.



From: Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 14:29
To: 'Susan Kawaguchi' <susank@xxxxxx<mailto:susank@xxxxxx>>, "James M. Bladel" 
<jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local 
law



Thanks James.



Under normal conditions, I would be happy to volunteer.  However, your email 
mentions a call before the next ICANN meeting to kick off the work of the 
group.  Given that this has been languishing for some time, could we postpone 
the kickoff under after Hyderabad?  There is just so very much to do to get 
ready to go, attend a 10 day meeting, and then return & recover that adding on 
something else, especially something which appears to be non-urgent, seems 
impractical.  Any chance we could do a kick off the 3rd week in November?  If 
so, I’m happy to join in the fun.



Best,

Paul





Paul D. McGrady, Jr.

policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>







From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:16 PM
To: James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>; GNSO 
Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local 
law



I can participate in this small group.



From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 10:41 AM
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local 
law



Thanks, Stephanie.


Council Colleagues:  So far, the folks volunteering for a small group are 
Donna, Stephanie and myself.  Perhaps we could encourage a few more folks to 
join?  Especially those from the IPC/BC/ISPC?



Once our list is final, we can try to convene a prep call before ICANN.

Thanks—

J.



From: Stephanie Perrin 
<stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday, October 7, 2016 at 11:57
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO 
Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with local 
law



Thanks Marika, you are absolutely correct, I was just looking for an explicit 
option spelled out there.  And Yes James, happy to volunteer, wild horses 
couldn't keep me away....

cheers Stephanie



On 2016-10-07 12:48, Marika Konings wrote:

   Stephanie, please see scenario and consequences #2:



   The Council should specify why it is of the view that the proposed 
modification is not consistent. Furthermore the Council could consider whether 
more work is required on the proposed modification to ensure that it is 
consistent with the intent of the policy recommendations (for example by 
reconstituting the IAG or forming a new group) or whether the original policy 
recommendations are in need of review.



   ‘Whether the original policy recommendations are in need of review’ would 
imply a PDP.



   Best regards,



   Marika



   Marika Konings

   Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for 
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

   Email: marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>



   Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO

   Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive 
courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DQMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=Sgz_T3rUl3_-zJt0ia6bsFJ_QD04EGmlWXIylJEH6wA&s=c8cYkk9SVAP9WAbtip1bl29HTeHAH7gPgOtbzygpQ2o&e=>
 and visiting the GNSO Newcomer 
pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DQMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=Sgz_T3rUl3_-zJt0ia6bsFJ_QD04EGmlWXIylJEH6wA&s=DRNWIw0SEHW5rzpIJV4GAoq76nlGl3dRXzIoDuHTxDY&e=>.





   From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on 
behalf of Stephanie Perrin 
<stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   Date: Friday 7 October 2016 at 10:34
   To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 
GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   Subject: Re: [council] Next Steps: IAG Report, and WHOIS Conflicts with 
local law



   Thanks for this.  I see no mention of my motion, which basically confirmed 
my position (and that of NCSG, whose submission missed the deadline) that the 
policy was fundamentally flawed.  I recognize noone wants another PDP but 
Council could also take the position that the policy needs to be revisited, and 
request a charter.  Seems logical if it has never been used in a decade.  
Anyway, I would submit that such a document should mention the fact that there 
were minority views in the IAG that the policy itself has flaws which demand a 
fix.

   Stephanie Perrin



   On 2016-10-07 12:19, James M. Bladel wrote:

      Councilors –



      Having now considered --and withdrawn-- two separate motions on this 
topic, it is clear that we need to regroup, reassess, and consider our path(s) 
forward.



      Per the discussion on our 30 SEP call, I would like to convene a group of 
interested Councilors to kick off discussions and present options. For context, 
please see the attached Overview document prepared by Staff.  This summary is 
intended to provide backgrounds, and kick start ideas for resolution, but by no 
means is it meant to serve as an exhaustive list.



      I’m hopeful this group can work together to reconcile the diverse 
opinions on this issue, and come back to Council one or more motions that have 
sufficient support to pass.



      Thank you,



      J.