[NCSG-PC] [NCSG-SubPro] NCSG Response to the proposed GAC-GNSO Consultation on Closed Generics
Stephanie E Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Sat Apr 23 00:21:05 EEST 2022
I think we should.
Stephanie
On 2022-04-22 5:16 p.m., Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I think the council has now decided not to include the letter. So I
> guess that leaves us to send it to the board ourselves?
>
> Tomslin
>
>
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 at 02:49, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20220422/7ce3826f/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list