[council] Letter from Steve Crocker to GAC Chair regarding GNSO/GAC role in gTLD policy development

[William Drake]

My tweet summary: #ICANN board rightly replies #GAC advise goo.gl/eEEU0L that ICRC names should not endure PDP indignity: RTFM goo.gl/8gRhcy

> On Nov 4, 2014, at 10:16 AM, David Cake <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU> wrote:
> 
> I think this is a very welcome and appropriate action by the board. 
> And a very welcome push back against some GAC members who seem to think the GACs role is whatever they would like it to be, and a very solid and appropriate defence of the GNSOs (and therefore multi-stakeholder policy making) in policy development. 
> 
> David
> 
> 
> On 4 Nov 2014, at 1:39 pm, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG>> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject:	[council] Letter from Steve Crocker to GAC Chair regarding GNSO/GAC role in gTLD policy development
>> Date:	Tue, 4 Nov 2014 04:33:11 +0000
>> From:	Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
>> To:	council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org> <council at gnso.icann.org> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
>> 
>> Dear Council members,
>> 
>> You and your communities will likely be interested in the latest letter sent
>> by Board Chair Steve Crocker to new GAC Chair Thomas Schneider, responding
>> to that part of the GAC advice in its London Communique in which the GAC
>> commented that protections for Red Cross designations ought not to be
>> conditioned on a PDP:
>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-schneider-03 <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-schneider-03>
>> nov14-en.pdf
>> 
>> Pertinent parts of Dr Crocker¹s letter include the following excerpt: "While
>> the GAC may participate in the policy development process, and has a role to
>> ³provide advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of
>> governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between
>> ICANN¹s policies and various laws and international agreements or where they
>> may affect public policy issues,² the GNSO has the authority to recommend
>> substantive policies on topics that are within the scope of ICANN¹s mission
>> statement, has potentially broad applicability to multiple situations or
>> organizations, is likely to have lasting value or applicability, and will
>> establish a guide or framework for future decision-making. The Board has
>> concerns about the advice in the London Communiqué because it appears to be
>> inconsistent with the framework established in the Bylaws granting the GNSO
>> authority to recommend consensus policies to the Board, and the Board to
>> appropriately act upon policies developed through the bottom-up consensus
>> policy developed by the GNSO.²
>> 
>> Dr Crocker¹s letter also serves to ³kick off² the prescribed Board-GAC
>> consultation process envisaged in the ICANN Bylaws in instances where the
>> Board disagrees with GAC advice.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Mary
>> 
>> Mary Wong
>> Senior Policy Director
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20141104/cf42fc53/attachment.htm>