<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Next steps with the new gTLD recommendations
I concure with this view.
Best,
tom
Am 30.05.2007 schrieb Ross Rader:
> Speaking as a councilor who has not materially participated in the
> committee, it would be my strong preference to deal with specific
> recommendations and understand the thinking that went into each. I do
> not support simply moving the report forward in an omnibus manner at
> this phase of the council's work.
>
> I think Avri has layed out a very reasonable approach to finalizing this
> work as I believe it would better help me understand the scope of issues
> and consideration that I am being asked to vote on.
>
> -ross
>
> Avri Doria wrote:
> >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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
Gruss,
tom
(__)
(OO)_____
(oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of
| |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger!
w w w w
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|