Re: [council] GAC recommendation on trip-x

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Actually I have another issue that concerns me, and it seems others  
both in and outside of ICANN, and that has to do with the reasons for  
a possible delay in completing the contract negotiations or even a  
possible reconsideration of the decision on approving the TLD, i.e.  
that the content issue of trip-x is somehow offensive to various  
constituencies.

It this comes to pass, as it appears it could, then I would assume  
there would be a policy issue that the council might want/need to  
discuss and act on if appropriate.

> > I was wondering, is it appropriate for the GNSO to make any
> > recommendation to the Board on the request by the GAC that
> > the decision on .xxx be reviewed?
>
> There are two questions.
>
> (1) Does the xxx proposal meet the current policy with respect to new
> TLDs?

From my current state of policy reading I would think it does.

> (2) In light of xxx, should a policy be developed about specific  
> strings
> for new TLDs, or the use of new TLDs?
>
> With respect to (1) - I personally think that is a question for the
> ICANN General Counsel and the Board to consider.

Partially, sure, legal counsel's opinions on the legal issue would be  
a good thing to know.

> As I understand it,
> xxx is part of an extension of the proof-of-concept with respect  
> tto new
> TLDs, and specifically it must meet the critiera of a spponsored  
> TLD as
> described in the recent RFP.

Certainly in terms of meeting current policy I also thought the  
council had standing for a judgement.  I did not assume that  
council's role ended once a policy recommendation was made.  Though I  
really still am trying to understand the full scope of the council's  
empowerment.


> If members of the GNSO community believe
> that it is not consistent with current policy - then they can provide
> input to the Board.

Or indeed if they consider it to consistent with the current policy  
it may be reasonable to say so.


> With respect to (2) - that should be included in our discussion about
> long term new gTLDs policy

I agree, though I personally think the new work should not pull back  
from the principle of not making judgments based on content issues.

thanks
a.


BTW, sorry it took so long for me to respond to your response.  my  
filters treated the subject line badly.