ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

[council] RE: RC / IGO / CRP Updates

  • To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] RE: RC / IGO / CRP Updates
  • From: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 00:29:06 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • In-reply-to: <18802BA3-5E81-46B7-83FA-C8D1E427974C@godaddy.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <18802BA3-5E81-46B7-83FA-C8D1E427974C@godaddy.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AQHSXUUFV0oNyNt5X02IPKNosSkZG6EWPOZA
  • Thread-topic: RC / IGO / CRP Updates


Thanks for this update.

If there is interest in making the IGO CRP report and recommendations the 
subject of a session in Copenhagen I would be happy to participate in that and 
I believe that Petter will feel the same. By that point in time the public 
comment period on the preliminary report and recommendations will have closed 
and the WG will be evaluating them and preparing a final report for Council 

My only caution in regard to “some sort of facilitated discussion between the 
GNSO and GAC” is that it must be clearly understood that GNSO policy 
recommendations and GAC advice are not to be regarded as having equivalent 
weight – the MSM places the ICANN community in the active lead role on 
developing DNS policy while governments having a responsive advisory role.

With that, happy holidays and best wishes for the new year to all Council 

Very best,

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004

Twitter: @VlawDC

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

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2016 12:50 PM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] RC / IGO / CRP Updates

Council Colleagues –

At the Second Public Forum in Hyderabad, Bruce Tonkin reported on the Board’s 
discussions regarding the inconsistencies between GAC Advice and GNSO Policy 
Recommendations on the subject of RC/IGO protections. At this session, Bruce 
made the following comment:

“The board met yesterday and we had a discussion about, you know, how best to 
move this forward, and we haven't made any resolution at this meeting because 
we want to talk to the different parties, but the gist of our suggestion is 
that we like the idea of some sort of facilitated discussion between the GNSO 
and GAC. We think it's important that in doing such a discussion, that there's 
a clear set of shared information and briefing documents that are available for 
all the parties in that discussion. “  

Since we left Hyderabad, there hasn’t been much progress to report on this 
front. However, this week the Council chairs (Donna, Heather and myself) had a 
brief call with Bruce, Becky and a few other folks from the Board, and also 
with Thomas Schneider and a few other folks from the GAC.  During this call, we 
brainstormed about a potential for a public session on this topic at ICANN58 in 
Copenhagen, and also discussed what materials & documents we should gather to 
ensure a constructive dialog (trialog?).

However, before we get too far in to this “facilitated discussion”, we first 
wanted to check in with the Council (and by extension, your SGs and Cs) and 
start a conversation to establish some boundaries and get consensus on our 

•         Any concerns about participating with the Board & GAC on this effort? 
I don’t believe this is the case, but worth asking at the outset.

o    Also, we’d like to keep the GNSO “delegation” small:  Chairs, GAC Liaison 
(Carlos) but situationally include subject matter experts (Phil, Petter, Thomas 
Rickert, etc.)

•         It is not our intention to “negotiate” or “compromise” on the 
substance of community-developed policy.  These are not ours to trade away.

o    Instead, the goal is to familiarize the other participants with GNSO 
procedures, provide rationale for how the recommendations were reached, and 
(only if necessary) describe the process for asking the GNSO community to 
revisit their earlier recommendations.

•         Naturally, we would report back to Council with any major 
developments, decisions or agreements.

•         Any other thoughts, questions or concerns from this Council.

Thanks in advance for your feedback.  And on behalf of Heather, Donna and 
myself:  Have a great holiday break!  All the best wishes to Councilors, Staff 
and their families & friends, and looking forward to a productive and 
prosperous 2017.

Thank you,

James Bladel
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16

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