Re: [council] RC / IGO / CRP Updates

[Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

James,

I would like to recommend to try to involve at least all GAC Vice Chairs
fro such a well prepared exercise, so as to get a better feeling of how
strong&urgent this issue is for all Governments involved, as compared to
other pending issues. In my view this discussion has a strong transatlantic
flavor (only), and would like to get more input from other countries if
there is any, as well as how close or far it is from the INGOs and the
NPOCs-of the World, in case there is any bottom-up input to the issue. Only
recently the case of the Red Cross has gained its own independent slot at
the GAC Communique level, and I would hope we can look for a general
framework/path for all 3 segments (IGOs, INGOs and Quangos like the Red
Cross and Red Crescent) instead of having to deal with each segment
individually.

Best

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
ISOC Costa Rica Chapter
skype carlos.raulg
+506 8837 7176
________
Apartado 1571-1000
COSTA RICA

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:50 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> 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. “  *http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/60/I57%20HYD_
> Tue08Nov2016-Public%20Forum%202-en.pdf
>
>
>
> 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 direction:
>
>
>
> ·         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,
>
>
>
> J.
>
> -----
>
> James Bladel
>