Brief summary of GNSO Council call of 30 November 2017

[Raoul Plommer]

Thanks for this Ayden, it was a very readable digestion. Keep 'em coming :)

-Raoul

On 8 December 2017 at 21:29, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As you may know, I am one of the NCSG's representatives on the GNSO
> Council. Earlier this year, before I was seated on the Council, I said that
> I would do my best to communicate the Council's activities on this mailing
> list. In that spirit, I thought I might send through a brief summary of our
> GNSO Council call from last Thursday.
>
> This meeting had a fairly uncontentious agenda. One of the agenda items
> was a response to the GAC communiqué, drafted by members of the GNSO
> Council, for submission to the ICANN Board. NCSG representatives were
> involved in the drafting of this language and we discussed its contents on
> our open Policy call on 27 November. However, seven minutes before the call
> began, members of the Commercial Stakeholders Group sent through a
> troubling amendment that they wanted made to this document.
>
> In this amendment, they sought to add language that stated "the continued
> and lawful availability of WHOIS/RDS data for consumer protection,
> intellectual property rights protection and law enforcement activities is a
> vital public concern". As NCSG Councillors we united in expressing our
> opposition to this amendment, joining colleagues from the Contracted
> Parties House in rejecting it. I spoke on behalf of the NCSG in stating
> that this language was not something we could support without first taking
> it to you, our members, to review. I said, however, that my initial
> reaction was that it was inconsistent with our past positions, and that if
> anything was a matter of vital public concern, it would be in ensuring that
> ICANN complies with global best practices, and the law, in relation to
> privacy and data protection matters.
>
> As NCSG Councillors we were also united in our vision for the Council's
> strategic planning session, which will be held in Los Angeles in January.
> We had a common view on who should be appointed as the GNSO's
> Representative to the Empowered Community Administration. And we were
> united in our views on the Rationale and Target Level for ICANN's Reserve
> Fund. However, as a Council, there is not a common view on this issue. We
> are split both at the Contracted/Non-Contracted level and at the
> Commercial/Non-Commercial level. As a compromise, the Council adopted new
> language in our response to this public comment opportunity that was very
> neutral. ("The Council wishes in particular to direct your attention to the
> detailed submissions made by various Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies
> of the GNSO. The reserve fund target level is of importance to all groups
> within the GNSO, and we believe that it is important that each has an
> opportunity to contribute its particular perspective.")
>
> Our next meeting is on 21 December. The agenda is still being prepared,
> but is likely to include either a discussion or motion on the practicality
> and feasibility of the triggers identified in the revised WHOIS Conflicts
> with Privacy Law Procedure. If that sounds like déjà vu it is because this
> issue has been on the agenda for a few meetings now, re-surfacing month
> after month, and we in the NCSG submitted a comment on it too back in July.
>
> I hope this update was helpful. For more on this 30 November meeting of
> the GNSO Council, please review the call transcript
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-30nov17-en.pdf>. You
> are also welcome to write to me off-list.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden Férdeline
> NCSG Councillor to the GNSO Council
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20171210/640942eb/attachment.htm>