Re: [council] RC / IGO / CRP Updates
- To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] RC / IGO / CRP Updates
- From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 20:04:23 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx;
- Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll@xxxxxxxxx>
- 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=xr+9Qd1Tth+rxmNAkIMzyjwKegNaAg9U8YHSJc1Aebk=; b=N5iRClx49naDz3sHfF58TjW79W4enh1vepE3uekXbVURBEpA9GLEgLSubbbixRtSq4Y6v+3y3omM4kXxUjqkOuJCWp+p/N53GuLR87GWDzXsXTsvFT5ZCehuevKCvXLT7kbfWSHPJo574f6jRf0uNDVQQa4elNqrgKAc9n8fznA=
- In-reply-to: <CAB05tDSYnS0WfgT-6FsB+mzXeAQDZby6ov3WoMK6N7+vyHyVRw@mail.gmail.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <18802BA3-5E81-46B7-83FA-C8D1E427974C@godaddy.com> <CAB05tDSYnS0WfgT-6FsB+mzXeAQDZby6ov3WoMK6N7+vyHyVRw@mail.gmail.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
- Thread-index: AQHSXUUFV0oNyNt5X02IPKNosSkZG6EaafOAgAFvwgA=
- Thread-topic: [council] RC / IGO / CRP Updates
- User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1d.0.161209
Thanks, Carlos. Great feedback, and I’ll be sure to relay this to Thomas.
Ultimately, it is the GAC Chair who will determine who / which vice-chairs will
participate on their behalf. Some of their current participants are, I
believe, vice chairs (current or former).
From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, December 26, 2016 at 10:08
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] RC / IGO / CRP Updates
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.
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
ISOC Costa Rica Chapter
+506 8837 7176
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:50 AM, James M. Bladel
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
• 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