[NCSG-PC] [NCSG-SubPro] NCSG Response to the proposed GAC-GNSO Consultation on Closed Generics
Kathy Kleiman
Kathy at KathyKleiman.com
Fri Apr 22 19:49:19 EEST 2022
Hi Manju,
This is disappointing, but not surprising. Tx to you and our other
Councilors for the trying to hold a fair and balanced line here. /
/
/Can I ask whether the Council will include our entire NCSG letter of
objection to their response - or do they want to select parts of it? /
If Council is willing to including our NCSG objection - whatever terms
/we//would like to include in the Council letter /- with a clear and
prominent reference to our NCSG letter of objection as an appendix-
then would it make it easier for the Board to see our concerns? One
place, one document to read (?)
Of course, if the Council wants to edit our letter, then sending it
separately makes sense. Also perhaps there are advantages to sending it
separately that I may not be seeing.
But the overall issue - that sending a few well-known, very-opinionated,
and frankly extreme (on this issue) Councilors to the GAC (not including
Manju, of course!) without guidance from the GNSO Community is a
distortion and misuse of the policy development process.
Best, Kathy
On 4/21/2022 10:30 PM, 陳曼茹 Manju Chen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thought it's worth it to report back to you that our objection to the
> dialogue was acknowledged but brushed aside by the Council chair.
> I would be optimistic and say that we still have many chances to voice
> our opinions during the latter process, the first step being
> broadening the dialogue to include more stakeholders within the GNSO,
> not limited to Councilors.
>
> Attached is the Council's draft response to the Board. There are
> discussions going on about whether the NCSG's letter of objection
> should be included in the response.
>
> My personal opinion is opt-out of being included in the Council's
> response and send our letter to the Board ourselves. But I'd like to
> know what you think.
>
> Council plans to send out the response by the Board Workshop next week
> so we'll have to respond before April 27th 1200 UTC (Wednesday).
>
> Any suggestions are welcome!
>
>
> Best,
> Manju
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 7:38 AM Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> I think the argument that will be used to respond to the idea of
> public comment is : councillors are representing their SG/C and
> are supposed to bring their input.
>
> Moreover in more practical matter, we are raising issues about
> discussing this issue with GAC but public comment means another
> group like ALAC would be involved. Any wider discussion should be
> then done within PDP and not through ad-hoc approach. I can see
> there might be some possible alignment with ALAC in the topic
> (just an assumption) but I would object to open the door just for
> tactical gain.
>
> If we fail to stop the process, the next step would be to discuss
> the rules of engagement and scope for any discussion.
>
> Best.
>
> Rafik
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 00:59 Kathy Kleiman via NCSG-SubPro
> <ncsg-subpro at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>
> Hi Manju,
>
> Great letter and great edits by Bruna. I edited a few small
> things and then pulled out and expanded our "ask" - that we
> would like the GNSO Council to hold a comment period to
> provide input and guidance to this small group of individuals
> appointed to talk to the GAC (should our excellent and
> well-founded objections to the process be overruled). This
> will provide a way for the GNSO Council to know the
> issues/concerns/hopes o the GNSO Community on this matter -
> and to provide clear input and guidance to the the small
> Committee for the negotiations that may lie ahead.
>
> Here's the paragraph - building on opening sentences of Manju
> and edits of Bruna:
>
> We strongly support as the first step that the GNSO Council
> seek public comment from the community on how to proceed with
> Closed Generics, as opposed to having a ‘closed dialogue’ with
> the GAC where the scope and interlocutors of such dialogue is
> dictated by the ICANN Board. This input will provide the
> Council with issues and concerns of the GNSO Community. The
> Council, in turn, can provide guidance to the members of the
> Council who will be leading this discussion - should it occur
> despite our deep concerns for Multistakeholder process and
> precedent. How else will this small team - some with very,
> very long-held personal views on the subject - be bound to a
> discussion on behalf of the entire GNSO Community?
>
> I recommend putting the paragraph in bold for those who tend
> to scan their email.
>
> Best, Kathy
>
> On 4/11/2022 11:04 PM, 陳曼茹 Manju Chen wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As discussed per yesterday's policy call, I've drafted our
>> formal response to be sent to the Council (and the Board?)
>>
>> You can find the statement here:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1buufalOjubifqZJoPLqF4wBaIUxHKLWor7NvILtnrKg/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> Feedbacks and suggestions are welcome and will be highly
>> appreciated!
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Manju
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 10:22 AM 陳曼茹 Manju Chen
>> <manju at nii.org.tw> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tomslin and all,
>>
>> Kurt and others obviously wanted it to be discussed in
>> the Council meeting this week.
>> Steve has suggested if that was the intent we could
>> propose a late motion. I think NCSG is not in a hurry
>> about this, so I'll let others handle it if they want to
>> propose the motion.
>>
>> I can share more details and answer questions today later
>> during our policy call.
>>
>> Best,
>> Manju
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 4:08 AM Tomslin Samme-Nlar
>> <mesumbeslin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Manju,
>> Thank you so much for the update. Nice strategy there
>> with the small team representation. Do you know when
>> that deferral will be brought to the council's
>> attention? Or maybe I missed it in my hundreds of emails.
>>
>> Thanks again.
>> Tomslin
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 08:18, 陳曼茹 Manju Chen
>> <manju at nii.org.tw> wrote:
>>
>> Hi team,
>>
>> Borrowing this thread to report back to you about
>> what happened in the small team.
>>
>> So as you might have guessed, I was the only one
>> saying no to the 'facilitated dialogue'. Jeff,
>> Paul, and Kurt were eager to dive into the
>> discussion of how we engage with GAC in this
>> 'facilitated dialogue' but thankfully they still
>> respected our objection. My first point of
>> objection is that the small team is really not
>> representative enough to make the decision of
>> whether the Council should meet with the GAC. For
>> now, we agreed to refer this back to the Council
>> and make the decision at the Council level.
>>
>> I'm afraid though NCSG would be the only one
>> saying no when we're at the Council level. Also
>> when this pops up, we really have to have our
>> statement ready explaining why we're saying no.
>> I've put notes in the document Tomslin created
>> and Kathy has been extremely helpful by providing
>> reference material and edits:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1buufalOjubifqZJoPLqF4wBaIUxHKLWor7NvILtnrKg/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>> We will still need to phrase them into a formal
>> statement, but I think it'd be an easy task now
>> we have all the contents.
>>
>> Best,
>> Manju
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 9:08 AM Tomslin
>> Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi team,
>>
>> I just wanted to call your attention to this
>> response we promised to put together on the
>> board proposed dialogue between GAC and
>> Council on closed generics. The Council small
>> team is about to be activated to start
>> deliberations and I believe @陳曼茹 Manju Chen
>> <mailto:manju at nii.org.tw> who is representing
>> us there hopes to rely on the response we pen
>> down to guide her contribution to that team.
>>
>> In this regard, can I request that we find
>> some time to please put our ideas down on the
>> Google
>> formhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1buufalOjubifqZJoPLqF4wBaIUxHKLWor7NvILtnrKg/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> Looking forward to your help with this. In
>> the meantime, i'll review my meeting notes
>> and put down some feedback we got during our
>> policy call on the document.
>>
>> Warmly,
>> Tomslin
>>
>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022, 22:25 Tomslin
>> Samme-Nlar, <mesumbeslin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As a follow-up to my previous email
>> regarding the board's proposed
>> facilitated dialogue between GAC and GNSO
>> council, I have created this Google doc [
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1buufalOjubifqZJoPLqF4wBaIUxHKLWor7NvILtnrKg/edit?usp=sharing
>> ] to capture our response to this
>> proposal in the form of a letter to the
>> council small team on Closed Generics.
>>
>> Inputs to the document are welcomed and
>> for your convenience, attached again is
>> the letter from the board and the
>> accompanying framing paper.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tomslin
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 at 08:12, Tomslin
>> Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear everyone,
>>
>> Here is the framing paper on the
>> board's proposed dialogue between
>> GNSO Council and the GAC on Closed
>> Generics that was promised.
>>
>> Comments are welcomed. I will also be
>> sending a separate email with a link
>> to the Google doc where we intend to
>> draft a letter as a response to this.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tomslin
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> From: *Wendy Profit via Gnso-chairs*
>> <gnso-chairs at icann.org>
>> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 at 04:33
>> Subject: [gnso-chairs]
>> [CORRESPONDENCE] Maarten Botterman to
>> Manal Ismail and Philippe Fouquart -
>> GAC-GNSO Consultation on Closed Generics
>> To: manal.ismail at board.icann.org
>> <manal.ismail at board.icann.org>, Manal
>> Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>,
>> philippe.fouquart at orange.com
>> <philippe.fouquart at orange.com>,
>> gnso-chairs at icann.org
>> <gnso-chairs at icann.org>
>> Cc: Secretary <secretary at icann.org>,
>> Correspondence
>> <Correspondence at icann.org>, Board Ops
>> Team <board-ops-team at icann.org>,
>> gnso-secs at icann.org
>> <gnso-secs at icann.org>, GACSTAFF
>> <gac-staff at icann.org>, Maarten
>> Botterman
>> <maarten.botterman at board.icann.org>
>>
>>
>> Dear Manal and Philippe,
>>
>> Pursuant to the letter sent recently
>> (6 March 2022, attached for
>> reference), we are now forwarding the
>> associated framework paper entitled
>> “Board-Facilitated Process for a GAC
>> - GNSO Council Dialogue on Closed
>> Generics”, also attached.
>>
>> **
>>
>> Thank you and best regards,
>>
>> Wendy Profit
>>
>> ICANN
>>
>> Board Operations Senior Manager
>>
>> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
>>
>> Los Angeles, CA 90094
>>
>> *From: *Wendy Profit
>> <wendy.profit at icann.org>
>> *Date: *Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 3:58 PM
>> *To: *"manal.ismail at board.icann.org"
>> <manal.ismail at board.icann.org>,
>> "manal at tra.gov.eg"
>> <manal at tra.gov.eg>,
>> "philippe.fouquart at orange.com"
>> <philippe.fouquart at orange.com>
>> *Cc: *Maarten Botterman
>> <maarten.botterman at board.icann.org>,
>> "gnso-chairs at icann.org"
>> <gnso-chairs at icann.org>, GACSTAFF
>> <gac-staff at icann.org>,
>> "gnso-secs at icann.org"
>> <gnso-secs at icann.org>, ICANN Board
>> Ops <board-ops-team at icann.org>,
>> Correspondence
>> <Correspondence at icann.org>, Secretary
>> <secretary at icann.org>
>> *Subject: *[CORRESPONDENCE] Maarten
>> Botterman to Manal Ismail and
>> Philippe Fouquart - GAC-GNSO
>> Consultation on Closed Generics
>>
>> Dear Manal and Philippe,
>>
>> Please find the attached letter from
>> ICANN Chair Maarten Botterman
>> regarding a proposed formal
>> consultation between the GAC and GNSO
>> Council on how to handle the subject
>> of closed generics in gTLD applications.
>>
>> Thank you and best regards,
>>
>> Wendy Profit
>>
>> ICANN
>>
>> Board Operations Senior Manager
>>
>> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
>>
>> Los Angeles, CA 90094
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-chairs mailing list
>> Gnso-chairs at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-chairs
>> _______________________________________________
>> By submitting your personal data, you
>> consent to the processing of your
>> personal data for purposes of
>> subscribing to this mailing list
>> accordance with the ICANN Privacy
>> Policy
>> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy)
>> and the website Terms of Service
>> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos).
>> You can visit the Mailman link above
>> to change your membership status or
>> configuration, including
>> unsubscribing, setting digest-style
>> delivery or disabling delivery
>> altogether (e.g., for a vacation),
>> and so on.
>>
> --
> NCSG-SubPro mailing list
> NCSG-SubPro at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-subpro
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20220422/b8e8697e/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list