[council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I reject the notion of a WG at all. IMO it is unnecessary and will not provide 
any useful, tactile benefits.

Did I miss something here Chuck. Was there a vote by the Council saying we 
would assist the GAC in doing this?

Is there a mechanism by which we could stop GNSO participation and support?

Adrian Kinderis


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 12:32 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group
Importance: High


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>>