Re: [council]
I didn't want to drag down the call making a statement regarding my vote on this item, but I do think its important to have a note of explanation on the record. For the record, I am not opposed to having a conversation about this topic in order to discover areas of common interest in the community. However, I am not sufficiently convinced that this issue warrants a high enough priority to pursue it at this time. Thanks all, -ross Marilyn Cade wrote: Dear colleagues With apologies for the 'just in time substitution' for tomorrow's Council call agenda item on the Statement of Work for Reserved Names, Chuck Gomes and Marilyn Cade ask that you accept this document as a replacement to theearlier draft which we posted now about 7 days ago.We have received some comments and tried to address them. In addition, we have improved the document and reorganized and streamlined some sections. We make a special effort to note that we believe that the work initiatives can be broken into sub-elements and addressed in even sequential tracks, so that not all work has to be done at the same time. We have discussed in the preparation of this version that we believe that some work will have ahigher priority than other.We will work from the document attached above in the discussion on the Statement of Work. In the event that you have trouble with openingdocuments for any reason, it is pasted below, as well. Thanks to Liz Williams for her assistance. Submitted by Marilyn Cade and Chuck GomesDraft Statement of Work - Version 2 for Working Group on Reserved Names (WG-RN)I. Formation of the Working Group The Working Group (WG) is chartered by the GNSO Council with an approvedstatement of work, as defined below. This Statement of Work is intended toguide the work of the group. 1. Voting: In general, the working group should operate using a rough consensusapproach. Every effort should be made to arrive at positions that most or all of the group members are willing to support. "Straw poll voting" should be used to determine whether there is rough consensus on particular issues. In order to ensure that each constituency does not have to provide the same number of members, constituencies, regardless of number of representatives, can hold 3 votes, and each individual nominating committee councilor holdone vote. Liaisons are non voting. 2. Membership The Working Group is open for membership to Councilors and to GNSOConstituency members; advisory committees (e.g., ALAC, GAC) may appoint non-voting liaisons to the working group. Members may be added by the constituencies and the Advisory groups at any time during the work of the WG. The ccNSO could be invited to have representatives participate as observers because there may be implications for the treatment of the two letter country codes, which are presently reserved at all levels. The WG may invite external experts as speakers or advisors (in the role of observer) that may be able to constructively contribute to the effort.Every effort should be made to ensure that the working group include andconsider the varying points of view on key issues. It is more important that all varying points of view are examined and reflected than for every constituency or group to have representation or equal numbers of members. If this goal is achieved and recommendations are developed that have rough consensus of the group, then the full Council, with balanced representation from all constituencies and NomCom appointees, will then have opportunity to act.Members should be selected who can commit sufficient time during the nextthree-four months to facilitate achievement of the targeted accomplishmentsdescribe in the next section (Working Timeline). The Council will appoint an initial or interim chair [or co-chairs] and theWorking Group should, at its initial meeting, elect or confirm the chair andco-chair(s). 3. Working Timeline The Working Group is asked to convene at the earliest possible time and toachieve the following targets: 1. Progress report in the upcoming intercessional working sessions of Dec05 PDP committee and the Feb06 PDP task force, scheduled for February 22-25 2. Deliver written recommendations for next steps forward to the GNSO Council at least one week prior to the start of the Lisbon ICANN meetings 3. Provide any follow-up actions requested by the Council within 30 days after the Lisbon meetings.As appropriate, the Working Group should coordinate throughout with the Dec05 PDP Committee, the Feb06 PDP Task Force and the GNSO Council. II. Purpose of the Working Group The purpose of the WG will be to perform an initial examination of the roleand treatment of reserved domain names at the first and second level., with the goal of providing recommendations for further consideration by the TF or Council. This working group should focus initially on defining the role of reserved strings, and how to proceed with a full examination of issues and possible policy recommendations. This will include prioritizing sub-elements of the broad topic of reserved names in a manner that would facilitate breaking the broad topic into smaller parts that could then be divided into separate policy efforts of a more manageable size and that might also allow some less complicated issues to be resolved in a more timely manner so that some policy changes might be included in the introduction of new gTLDs.The treatment of reserved names is a matter of contract for existing gTLDsand will be a matter of contract for future gTLDs. As such it relates to the work of both the Dec05 PDP regarding the Introduction of New gTLDs including IDNs and the Feb06 PDP regarding Contractual Conditions for Existing Registries, Therefore the WG needs to provide an initial examination of reserved names at both the top and second level for both existing and new gTLDs. Should it be determined that the ToR for Feb 06 does not allow for addressing contractual conditions, the WG report to theCouncil regarding relevant recommendations. III. Working Group Responsibilities, Tasks and Proposed Working Approach A. To perform its initial examination of the role and treatment of reserveddomain names at the first (top) level, WG responsibilities and tasks should include but need not be limited to the following: 1. Review the present treatment and process for reservation of names at all levels (using Appendix 6 in the latest gTLD Registry Agreements as examples), including reviewing treatment of reserved names that may differ in existing contracts - link provided in Background Section 2. Review any other discussions to date that have occurred related to reserved names for top level strings for new gTLDs including IDN gTLDs (e.g., the GNSO's Task Force on new gTLDs; constituency comments, etc.) 3. Review any ICANN staff reports related to reserved names - see Background Section 4. Review any relevant technical documents ,e.g., relevant RFCs -see Background Section and determine what technical outreach (IETF, IAB,SSAC,etc.) is needed and complete. 5. Liaise with the ICANN staff as needed, including legal andoperational, to identify and review any existing work or relevant experiences related to reserved names processes and procedures 6. Liaise with the ccNSO and the ccTLD community in general as needed regarding the two letter names issues, including whether the present approach, as outlined in Appendix 6, is sufficient or necessaryB. Proposed Working Approach for Working Group: 1. Initially, examine the sub-elements of the broad topic of
|