<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] For your review - GNSO Review of GAC Communique Hyderabad
- To: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] For your review - GNSO Review of GAC Communique Hyderabad
- From: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 17:58:39 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=neustar.biz; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=neustar-biz; bh=7UASJSAyVGackkCoNKxNxbsVqyVJrbyBeR4ax8ZUDQI=; b=hCF7KG1WEhx1XuRexvekDlcrOpAF8vGAgUjEr1L6ZiW/Stlq035CAMN5KnNLSoVYDy3B hO18MfPyuIrlvyhVW/S6IeCgA/fCuF+nnEFRcSuGJpz7KK3DCT7cu0fwmqe+MInXkQdy /aDsvJGSz5FJk2kGh1G9SsstmaOMq3rn/agXF9XmYmbaXhgNtOTjxJxh9K04E5qV3lHT 3YIzUSZdk+rEzmO/Yi5xZ1oKGP0vh5SLiLKAeX1U+8h8x8WLc6YsehjPQ8C21m/qhuil B+BT2CX957uLuuQys22KxR3MzuNq1euf9ccuG1zFNgJvDl00eIBLNB7bQX0A4sW2BSF5 NQ==
- In-reply-to: <A416941AD213C9428D623560432AFBB62E150E3B@STNTEXMB10.cis.neustar.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <20161212131037.196dc3a93c35c991bce5ceb11d0fbfbb.d89331e591.wbe@email17.godaddy.com> <A416941AD213C9428D623560432AFBB62E150E3B@STNTEXMB10.cis.neustar.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AQHSVLPgbn9OyXkgBU+YfZaGfTh9fKEGZvZggAFWyrA=
- Thread-topic: [council] For your review - GNSO Review of GAC Communique Hyderabad
Paul, all
Just a heads up that we had some discussion about this during an RySG call
earlier today and as a result I will have some amendments to my revised
language, which I will get to the list as soon as I can.
Donna
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Austin, Donna
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 1:53 PM
To: policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>;
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] For your review - GNSO Review of GAC Communique Hyderabad
Paul
Notwithstanding your discussions with Michele and Rubens, I have received some
suggested alternate text from the RySG for consideration, specifically as it
relates to the following sentences:
Paul McGrady text:
Some contracted parties to ICANN have or are in the process of developing a
number of “best practices” initiatives related to registry and registrar
operations. ICANN is responsible for setting standards for abuse reporting and
performance when determining compliance with contractual obligations.
RySG alternative text:
Contracted parties, either through the respective Stakeholder Groups or other
avenues, have or are in the process of developing a number of ‘best practice’
initiatives related registry and registrar operations. ICANN is not a regulator
and, while it has responsibility to manage its contracts, it is not appropriate
for one party to unilaterally define the standards for reporting enforcement.
In addition, I also wonder whether it would be worthwhile raising your concerns
about the use of the term “advice” as an overarching issue in the covering
transmission letter to the Board? It seems important enough to warrant such
elevation.
Look forward to your response.
Donna
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 12:11 PM
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>;
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] For your review - GNSO Review of GAC Communique Hyderabad
Hi All,
The IPC has had a chance to consider the draft language for Section 2 and
propose the following (heavily) edited draft response:
___________________________
The GNSO Council would like to express concern that the list of questions set
out in Annex 1 has been categorised as “advice”. In this context, the term
“advice” ought to be given its ordinary dictionary meaning, and a request to
the Board to provide various data and information does not constitute “GAC
Advice”, as this term is used in the ICANN Bylaws. Since GAC Advice has a
specific status and treatment under the under the ICANN Bylaws, precision of
terminology is crucial to avoid any perception that there is an attempt to
direct the Board, rather than making a request for information and attempting
to impose a reasonable deadline for its provision. That said, the GNSO Council
looks forward to reviewing ICANN’s responses to the questions listed in Annex 1
to the Communiqué. Some contracted parties to ICANN have or are in the
process of developing a number of “best practices” initiatives related to
registry and registrar operations. ICANN is responsible for setting standards
for abuse reporting and performance when determining compliance with
contractual obligations. The issue of DNS Abuse Mitigation raised by the GAC
may also be dealt with by the GNSO in GNSO PDP Working Groups, producing
relevant Consensus Policy recommendations then duly adopted by the Board.
Further, the issue of DNS Abuse Mitigation raised by the GAC is dealt with by
the GNSO as the issue arises, whether it be various active and/or open projects
on the Projects
List<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_meetings_projects-2Dlist-2D28nov16-2Den.pdf&d=DgMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=b_o3-i0H2nKfE3BqYDYucWO1-3N1E4XVLXqlYXkqZ4Y&s=OnENUeYwFCPLqmH6BhL_VfSwze9IjfPBwZtjrj6smAM&e=>,
or as part of GNSO Policy
Activities<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_policy&d=DgMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=b_o3-i0H2nKfE3BqYDYucWO1-3N1E4XVLXqlYXkqZ4Y&s=DAh8dGjoP-HlunMGgxErthrt2L98OaFx7eNjhl28kT4&e=>.
___________________________
I'm very happy to discuss the rationale for these proposed changes.
Best,
Paul
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] For your review - GNSO Review of GAC Communique
Hyderabad
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thu, December 08, 2016 11:48 am
To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Dear All,
Please find attached for your review the proposed GNSO Review of the GAC
Communique. This draft has been developed by the small drafting team that was
formed at ICANN57 consisting of Donna Austin, James Bladel, Heather Forrest,
Phil Corwin, Michele Neylon, Paul McGrady and Carlos Guttierez. Please share
any comments and/or input you may have with the mailing list. Consideration of
this document is also on the agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 15 December.
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=DgMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=b_o3-i0H2nKfE3BqYDYucWO1-3N1E4XVLXqlYXkqZ4Y&s=dNjsiuWO3xdzLW4v1BH88xcBii9uiGCBDGesqG9gB7I&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=DgMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=b_o3-i0H2nKfE3BqYDYucWO1-3N1E4XVLXqlYXkqZ4Y&s=gtfl9Z6dWYQL3zTtk15ezDF16TnJlbluKDGvMZg5xaE&e=>.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|