[NCSG-PC] [NCSG-SubPro] NCSG Response to the proposed GAC-GNSO Consultation on Closed Generics

Sat Apr 23 03:10:24 EEST 2022

I agree, if it will not be attached we should send it directly. 

JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P.
Director - MINKA DIGITAL ColombiaGNSO Councilor - ICANNCivil Soc. Rep - CODECTI  (Comité Departamental de Ciencia Tecnología e Innovación)
Master IT candidate, Universidad de los AndesRegistered Linux User No.533108.

Cel. +57 301 743 56 00
Instagram/Twitter: @JmanuRojas

    El viernes, 22 de abril de 2022, 04:21:17 p. m. GMT-5, Stephanie E Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> escribió:  

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 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

 _______________________________________________
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/20220423/b20169e3/attachment.htm>