<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Next steps with the new gTLD recommendations
Hi,
I would like to comment on a few points.
I agree that the GNSO must not become a block to new TLDs and that
getting this policy developed is one of our highest priorities. But
I also think we need to produce a policy recommendation that is
complete and balanced enough to be able to achieve consensus, if
possible, as well as address the complex interplay of elements with a
transparent, open, predictable and workable solution. While delaying
the release of this policy is problematic, coming out with a policy
that is either not finished or does not have consensus would, to my
mind, be worse. I am not arguing for the perfect solution and am
willing to satisfice, but I am arguing for a solution that is well
formed, workable and meets ICANN mission and core values as a minimal
condition.
In answer to your specific question, personally, I believe that we
will have to talk through each of the recommendations separately to
determine the council's, as a council not a committee of the whole,
level of support for each recommendation. I think several questions
need to be considered:
- to what degree have we reached consensus on the recommendations?
While level of support was roughly measured on each of the
recommendations by the chair, those levels of support have never been
formalized with a list of councilors pro and con.
- to what extent does the council accept the aggregation of the
results from the 3 WGs (IDN, RN, PRO) into the committees draft final
report. These WGs were neither the council nor the committee of the
whole itself and their recommendations need to be evaluated by the
council in relation to their inclusion in the new GTLD recommendations.
- in those cases where we have reached some sort of consensus, does
the text clearly represent what people are agreeing to? there were
often unresolved nuances in the discussions where we just moved on to
the next question perhaps to return at some future time to the open
issues. On several occasions, the level of support was determined
while something was still being discussed and where the wording was
still somewhat fluid. Does the text satisfy those who support the
recommendation?
Assuming that there is strong support for a recommendation as
written, we should be able to confirm that support with a list of
every councillor that openly supports the position relatively
quickly. In places where we do not have strong support for a
recommendation we should be able to indentify that quickly as well
and add the issue to the 'work to be done' list. I think doing this
work is an integral part of:
wherein the Council will work towards achieving a Supermajority
Vote to present to the Board.
and something we must do before we ask others to consider the report.
I also think we need to take a formal vote at the end on the full and
final-final report before sending it off to the Board as required by
by-laws. And we will need to decided as a council whether there may
be issues that require more expert opinion as indicated in the by-
laws 10b:
. The Council may, if it so chooses, solicit the opinions of
outside advisors at its final meeting. The opinions of these
advisors, if relied upon by the Council, shall be (i) embodied in
the Council's report to the Board, (ii) specifically identified as
coming from an outside advisor; and (iii) be accompanied by a
detailed statement of the advisor's (x) qualifications and relevant
experience; and (y) potential conflicts of interest.
thanks for asking
a.
On 28 maj 2007, at 17.58, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello All,
With respect to the Council meeting on 7 June, I would like to get a
sense of how the Council wants to handle the current new gTLD
recommendations.
As others have pointed out, some of the recommendations require
further
work with respect to developing dispute resolution processes.
There
are also no doubt some recommendations with stronger support than
others. The intent is that the recommendations as currently drafted
by staff are capable of supermajority support based on the discussions
during the new gTLD committee meetings.
My current concern is that if we don't move the work we have done to
some kind of vote - which may accept all or some of the
recommendations
by super-majority vote - we are in danger of losing the consensus that
has been built up through many meetings. I also feel we are at the
point of diminishing returns. No significant new issues were
raised in
Lisbon that had not already been discussed in the new gTLD committee.
I feel that there is a community expectation that the GNSO Council
either conclude its work, or at least identify which bits are
concluded
to allow the Board to consider the recommendations and to allow
staff to
begin to do further work. We don't want the GNSO to be seen as the
barrier to new TLDs (either IDN or non-IDN based).
If we can't make some sort of statement about the level of
consensus of
the recommendations, it becomes hard to justify ICANN staff spending
additional time working on the implementation details.
I expect that as staff begin working on the implementation details of
dispute processes and other implementation details, that they may seek
further clarification of the recommendation, or even recommend the
removal of a recommendation if not external dispute process can be
developed. I would also expect that we will get more input on the
dispute processes once detailed drafts are published - this will
ensure
that issues such as freedom of speech are properly addressed in the
dispute processes.
No doubt as new people become involved in ICANN and the GNSO - there
will be desire to reset the clock, and start the policy development
again. I feel however that we will never get a perfect answer, and
that
it is better to proceed in such a way that minimises risk in the first
round, but also allows flexibility to update the recommendations based
on experience of the first round.
It would be useful to hear the views of Council members on this topic
via the Council mailing list prior to the Council meeting next week.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|