ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group

  • To: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:31:37 -0400
  • Importance: high
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Acs/qzs8n2u1pC08RImzskJWzlm3ng==
  • Thread-topic: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group

Hopefully all of you are aware that the GAC requested a community
working group to discuss the implementation of the GNSO New gTLD
Recommendation 6.  To accommodate that request, the list that the GNSO
established in follow-up to Bill Drake's request in our Brussels Wrap-Up
session to participate in the discussions on this topic going on within
the GAC an ALAC will be used for the community working group
discussions.

Considering how late this is happening relative to the new gTLD process,
Cheryl Langdon-Orr, chair of the ALAC, and Heather Dryden, Chair of the
GAC, and I have been discussing how to go about accommodating the GAC
request in a timely manner.  To expedite discussions, we decided to
prepare an initial draft Terms of Reference (ToR) for discussion by
those who have volunteered to participate in the group.  The hope is to
very quickly finalize the ToR so that discussion of the issues may begin
and thereby have a chance of developing recommendations for improving
the implementation plan for Recommendation 6 in the Draft Application
Guidebook, version 4.

As you can see in the draft ToR, this is not a PDP.  The GNSO Council
already approved Recommendation 6 by a super-majority vote.  There is no
intent to undo the intent of that recommendation; to do that would
require a PDP because it would be materially changing an already
approved policy recommendation.  Rather, the intent is to explore
whether the implementation process in version 4 of the Guidebook could
be improved in a way that addresses any of the GAC and ALAC concerns.

As all of you know, there is no established process for community
working groups.  In drafting the initial ToR for discussion, we tried to
accommodate the needs of all three organizations especially in terms of
how they operate, which are different in certain respects.  Please note
that the group is open to all community participants from all SOs and
ACs and for that matter any who are not SO or AC participants.

I believe that this could be the first significant effort of the GNSO
and GAC working together in a WG and I am hopeful that it will provide
some lessons for how we can to that better on other issues in the
future, just like the GNSO Council discussed with the GAC in Brussels.
The GAC has an important advisory role in ICANN policy processes as they
relate to public policy issues and we all know that the Board will
listen intently to the GAC advice on the implementation of
Recommendation 6.  Therefore, it seemed wise to try to do that sooner
rather than later to minimize any further delays.

I will add this topic to the agenda for 26 August but would really
appreciate it if we can discuss it on the list in advance.

Thanks for your cooperation,

Chuck



 <<New gTLD Recommendation 6  Community Discussion Group Terms of
Reference v3.docx>> 

Attachment: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Discussion Group Terms of Reference v3.docx
Description: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Discussion Group Terms of Reference v3.docx



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>