Fw: [Internet Policy] The 2-Character Answer to this GAC Advice Should be "No"

[Ayden Férdeline]

Worth a read.

- Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Internet Policy] The 2-Character Answer to this GAC Advice Should be "No"
Local Time: May 16, 2017 3:43 PM
UTC Time: May 16, 2017 2:43 PM
From: psc at vlaw-dc.com
To: ISOC policy List <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>

I have just published a new article regarding current ICANN developments between the Board and GAC. It can be found at http://www.circleid.com/posts/20170516_the_2_character_answer_to_this_gac_advice_should_be_no/

Here’s the introduction—

Overview: ICANN’s GAC has reacted to the ICANN Board’s November 2016 decision to authorize the release of two-character domains at new gTLDs with advice to the Board that does not have true consensus backing from GAC members and that relates to procedure, not policy. The Board’s proper response should be to just say no, stick to its decision and advise the GAC that it will not consider such advice.

Instead, the Board has, against the preliminary advice of the policy-making GNSO Council, initiated discussions with aggrieved GAC members that may reopen its decision. Continuing down this dangerous path may provide governments with far more leverage over ICANN policy decisions than was ever envisioned or intended by the long debated and carefully crafted new Bylaws language addressing the Board’s responsibility to give attention to GAC advice.

I hope you find it of interest and welcome any feedback.

Best regards,

Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170516/87fb61b8/attachment.htm>