ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] Status of Draft Response to Board re: IGO/INGO/Red Cross names

  • To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] Status of Draft Response to Board re: IGO/INGO/Red Cross names
  • From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 04:01:14 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx;
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secureservernet.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-godaddy-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=HKcGbfREcjlHOdGgP/K/AxVFxjC73Z+l7PFwnzdZX+I=; b=AV1Kk5DIsHovADL2tEIp2bg8LjyJWFrpcYuQlmo7YX5ZE0Zlf08qwKAVV6SxnIGUNyo0lBAcJpe6aSNQAccFK80PNzjrmBqILT76W0XkplSVjIvplkYAD4i9K2twGfjqUKdFJ8Kh75sWRNLGmL9vEFWqd8wd0LOi6HTLvf5HE2o=
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
  • Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
  • Thread-index: AQHSVPWLymcUlE88E0KITedOtC3/lA==
  • Thread-topic: Status of Draft Response to Board re: IGO/INGO/Red Cross names
  • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1a.0.160910

Dear Colleagues

We wanted to provide you all with an update on that status of the attached 
communication prepared prior to the recent ICANN meeting in Hyderabad.

As you are all aware this was the topic of many conversations for the Council, 
as well as the Board, the GAC, and the community during meeting. Some of you 
may also be aware that during Public Forum 
2<http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/60/I57%20HYD_Tue08Nov2016-Public%20Forum%202-en.pdf>,
 (pp 90-92) Bruce Tonkin noted a common topic for the Board during the week was 
around how to handle the situation where the Board receives inconsistent 
information or recommendations or advice and used the protection of Red Cross 
names and IGOs as a case in point. The Board considers that there would be 
value in a facilitated discussion between the GNSO and the GAC to try to reach 
some sort of shared view point, and offered to make available the necessary 
resources to make this happen.

Heather and James had an initial conversation with Bruce and Becky Burr after 
the Public Forum, in order to get a better understanding of what is being 
proposed. At the time the idea was a very loose framework at best and we have 
been endeavoring to set up a call with representatives from the Board and the 
GAC to discuss what is being proposed, with a view to bringing this suggestion 
back to Council for further discussion in January. Unfortunately, to date we 
have not been able to schedule a call.

As a result we have not progressed the attached communication.  We would prefer 
to wait until we understand the intent of the facilitated discussion, and how 
and when that would take place, in the event that the Council and the GAC agree 
to move forward with this approach.

We will keep you informed as more information becomes available.

Regards

James, Heather, Donna

Attachment: Comparison Table - RC & IGOs - updated 30 October 2016[1].docx
Description: Comparison Table - RC & IGOs - updated 30 October 2016[1].docx

Attachment: CLEAN - GNSO-Draft GNSO reply IGO acronyms d4.docx
Description: CLEAN - GNSO-Draft GNSO reply IGO acronyms d4.docx

Attachment: GNSO-Draft GNSO reply IGO acronyms d4.docx
Description: GNSO-Draft GNSO reply IGO acronyms d4.docx



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>