[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] LAST CALL: Draft GNSO Council response on gTLD policy issues in the GAC Copenhagen Communique

Tue Apr 25 02:38:18 EEST 2017

Hi all,

are we fine with the latest version and amendments for the GNSO response to
GAC communique?

Best,

Rafik
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>
Date: 2017-04-25 3:05 GMT+09:00
Subject: Re: [council] LAST CALL: Draft GNSO Council response on gTLD
policy issues in the GAC Copenhagen Communique
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg at isoc-cr.org>,
"James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
Cc: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>

Mary, all

Thank you to everyone for their input. I’ve suggested some changes to the
language responding to IGOs and 2 Characters with the intent of making the
responses a little more focused. I’ve copied my suggested language below
for ease of reference.

I’m conscious that in our recent responses we have moved away some from the
original intent of providing a GNSO Council response to GAC advice to the
Board and I accept this as part of the evolution of this exercise. However,
I don’t think it is appropriate for the Council to be telling the Board
whether they should accept or reject GAC advice and for that reason I have
removed that language from the original text on 2 characters. I also felt
that we should be explicit with regard to the 2 character advice that the
Board should not be re-opening this discussion after they have passed a
resolution and had staff implement accordingly.

On the IGO language, I have re-worked this with Mary’s help, to try to
address Heather’s suggestions.

It may also be worth explaining to the Board, in our transmittal letter,
that at a meta level the Council is concerned that GAC advice does seem to
be straying beyond the new ICANN bylaws and as a result potentially
undermining the multi-stakeholder model and disenfranchising the broader
ICANN community. As representatives of the stakeholder groups and
constituencies that comprise the GNSO, the GNSO Council feels compelled to
raise these issues with the Board where they appear as GAC advice. Perhaps
this is also a conversation we should have with the Board at some point.

Thanks

Donna

IGO Language:

The GNSO Council refers to its previous response to the Board on this
topic, which notes the ongoing work of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative
Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Development Process (PDP) Working
Group. The GNSO Council appreciates the opportunity to participate in the
facilitated discussion with the GAC at ICANN58, and the good faith dialogue
that took place.

In relation to the GAC’s advice to the Board to pursue implementation of:

(i)            a permanent system of notification to IGOs regarding
second-level registration of strings that match their acronyms in up to two
languages; and

(ii)           a parallel system of notification to registrants for a more
limited time period, in line with both previous GAC advice and GNSO
recommendations.

The GNSO Council understands that the agreed outcome of the facilitated
dialogue session at ICANN 58 was that further input from ICANN on the
feasibility of permanent notification to IGOs is required; and that a
parallel system of notification to registrants for a more limited time
period, is in line with both previous GAC advice and GNSO recommendations.

In relation to the GAC’s advice to the Board to facilitate continued
discussions in order to develop a resolution that will reflect (i) the fact
that IGOs are in an objectively unique category of rights holders and (ii)
a better understanding of relevant GAC Advice, particularly as it relates
to IGO immunities recognized under international law as noted by IGO Legal
Counsels. The GNSO Council looks forward to continuing, in good faith, the
discussions with the GAC and the Board on appropriate next steps, but is
concerned that the GAC advice in this instance seems to suggest a
predetermined outcome, which the Council believes is premature.

As previously communicated to the Board, the ongoing PDP on IGO-INGO Access
to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms will take into account the GAC’s
comments on the Initial Report. The GNSO Council notes that the Working
Group is actively reviewing all comments received on its Initial Report,
including the comments submitted by the GAC and a number of IGOs.

2 character language:

There should be no opportunity for this Advice to cause the Board to
re-open their decision on two letter codes at the second level, as
contained in the Board’s resolution of 8 November 2016 and subsequent
implementation, which came at the end of a long process that included
community consultation and input.

The Council is also concerned that the Consensus Advice contained in
Section VI. 4. of the Communique that essentially requires the ICANN Board
to negotiate directly, and reach resolution, with individual governments on
two letter domain names at the second level is, in our view, inconsistent
with the Consensus Advice mechanism found in the ICANN bylaws and as such
should not be considered “Consensus Advice”.  The GNSO Council regards this
as an unhelpful attempt to sidestep requirements contained in the Bylaws to
delegate GAC-equivalent consensus advice to individual GAC members, rather
than the GAC as a whole.  We note that this was discussed extensively
during the CCWG-ACCT Workstream 1 process and was ultimately rejected.
Bilateralism between the Board and individual GAC members also has the
potential to undermine the utility of the GAC itself and is also
inconsistent with ICANN’s commitment to the United States Government and
other parts of the ICANN Community that the GAC or individual governments
would not end up with more power in a post-transition ICANN.

*From:* council-bounces at gnso.icann.org [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.
icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong
*Sent:* Monday, April 24, 2017 8:00 AM
*To:* Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg at isoc-cr.org>; James M. Bladel <
jbladel at godaddy.com>
*Cc:* GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
*Subject:* [council] LAST CALL: Draft GNSO Council response on gTLD policy
issues in the GAC Copenhagen Communique

Dear all,

As the Board and GAC will be meeting this Thursday to discuss the GAC
Copenhagen Communique, *please provide any comments or suggestions on the
current draft of the GNSO Council response as soon as possible* and
preferably *no later than 1400 UTC tomorrow (Tuesday 25 April)*. We are
suggesting this deadline as the Council leadership needs to finalize the
letter to be sent to the Board the same day noting the gist of the
Council’s response.

For your convenience, the latest draft is attached. This contains the edits
made by James and the suggestions from Paul (see thread below). Your
comments on Issue 2 (IGO names and acronyms) and Issue 4 (two-letter codes)
will be particularly welcome as those are the topics on which substantive
language has either been provided or requires resolution.

Thanks and cheers

Mary

*From: *Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg at isoc-cr.org>
*Date: *Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 08:34
*To: *"James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
*Cc: *Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, GNSO Council List <
council at gnso.icann.org>
*Subject: *[Ext] Re: [council] FOR REVIEW/COMMENTS: Draft GNSO Council
response on gTLD policy issues in the GAC Copenhagen Communique

James,

sorry for missing the call last Thursday. Here are my personal suggestions
to the issues that a focused letter should raise to the board before their
meeting with the GAC based on comments of the drafting team so far:

1. In the case of the Red Cross et. al., the Copenhagen mediation by a
former Board member made a clear Board resolution possible! The GNSO
council looks forward to a revision of the policy based on this resolution,
as the international law basis for the Red Cross et.al[et.al]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__et.al&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=TseDXXOR-59M_1ncIXDZ4zK87ZZC-IzNhROgv_QtNkI&s=NB1B4pDwoNZGVxDt4TGRbbQAnE7dzTh4IBWeXfWRU4w&e=>.
can be considered rather homogeneous.

2. In the case to the IGOs, The GNSO’s IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy
Development Process Working Group is actively reviewing all comments
received on its Initial Report, including the comment submitted by the GAC.
It remains clear from the mediation efforts during the Copenhagen meeting,
that there is still the expectation in the Council that the Boards owes the
GNSO community a clear resolution to direct future efforts in an efficient
way forward, as was the case with the Red Cross et.al[et.al]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__et.al&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=TseDXXOR-59M_1ncIXDZ4zK87ZZC-IzNhROgv_QtNkI&s=NB1B4pDwoNZGVxDt4TGRbbQAnE7dzTh4IBWeXfWRU4w&e=>
.

3. In the case of the delegation of 2-letter codes, some members of the
Council will like to raise serious concerns to the Board, of the impact
that bilateral case by case resolution with Governments could have on the
principle of bottom-up policy development of ICANN. Instead of developing a
consensus position that all GAC members have agreed with, the Consensus
Advice mechanism found in the bylaws is being circumvented to order the
ICANN Board to negotiate with, and presumably reach agreement on, each
government’s individual demands.  This should not be considered proper
“Consensus Advice”, but could rather be considered an attempt to circumvent
the very clear threshold for the GAC to issue “Consensus Advice”.

4. In the case of the Mitigation of the DNS abuse, the GNSO Council refers
to its input to the Board regarding the GAC’s Hyderabad Communique on this
topic, and reiterates the concerns it stated in that response:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-15dec16-en.pdf
[gnso.icann.org]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_review-2Dgac-2Dcommunique-2D15dec16-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=TseDXXOR-59M_1ncIXDZ4zK87ZZC-IzNhROgv_QtNkI&s=r9GlFY9q-by9JdnBqZ9ugGNWTNV2YiMK2C0xKKoGeis&e=>
.

I hope it helps.

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
ISOC Costa Rica Chapter
skype carlos.raulg
+506 8837 7176 <+506%208837%207176>
________
Apartado 1571-1000
COSTA RICA

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:04 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
wrote:

Councilors –

Please see attached for a revised version of this comment document.  Note
that due to a configuration error, I appear as both “James Bladel” and
“Microsoft User”.   I’ve attempted to clarify existing comments, but I
believe we still have some work to do in item #2 (IGO Protections).  I’m
good with the other elements of the comment.

As we are attempting to hit a short deadline, please review and provide
your comments as soon as possible.  I will then work with Staff to (a)
restructure this document in the form of a letter that can be sent to the
Board and (b) prepare a new formal motion for consideration at or before
our next meeting.

Thank you,

J.

*From: *<council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <
mary.wong at icann.org>
*Date: *Friday, April 21, 2017 at 10:18
*To: *GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
*Subject: *[council] FOR REVIEW/COMMENTS: Draft GNSO Council response on
gTLD policy issues in the GAC Copenhagen Communique

Dear Councilors,

As discussed on the Council call yesterday, please find attached the
current draft of a possible GNSO Council response to the gTLD policy issues
raised in the GAC’s Copenhagen Communique. Staff had taken the liberty,
when assisting the group of Council volunteers on this effort, of inserting
certain comments and suggestions that are also reflected in the document.

Please review the document and send your comments and suggestions to this
mailing list. As noted on the Council call, the Board’s call with the GAC
on the Communique is scheduled for 27 April, so it will be ideal if the
Council chairs are in a position to send a note generally highlighting the
Council’s views before that date, with a view toward formal Council
adoption of the final text at the Council’s next meeting in mid-May.

Thanks and cheers

Mary

_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=PeaS2tbsABHw7h_WsOfdBgdQHRcL493Zwysg3-oqY40&s=PfK8MkUwNcvael57QhPTVNqkeJGNeJNYDhjnZR6li-I&e=>

_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170425/2db16a37/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Council Review of GAC Communique - CPH - 21 April 2017_DA.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 35847 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170425/2db16a37/attachment.docx>