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

Sat Apr 23 00:16:08 EEST 2022

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 <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 form
>>>>>>> https://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-subpro/attachments/20220423/d4a7c991/attachment-0001.htm>