<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group
- To: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group
- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:29:23 -0700
- Cc: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The GAC advises the Board, and I believe it is presumptive of the GNSO
Council to not wait for the Board reply. I also would prefer to instead
encourage the Board to just say NO and allow no further delays. The GNSO
has established a policy and we should be working towards its
implementation not against it. Your arguments below open the door for
every SG with a concern to create further delay.
I am also not too sure about this so-called "community working group"
concept and what it means long term in regards to policy development (or
implementation details if you like that term better).
Tim
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working
> Group
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, August 20, 2010 8:54 am
> To: "Adrian Kinderis" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Council
> GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> I would like to understand
> your position better Adrian
> and also explain mine.
>
> Do you not think that the GNSO
> should try to work together
> with the GAC on their concerns
> regarding the implementation
> of new gTLD Recommendation 6?
>
> The GAC has an important
> advisory role to the ICANN
> community regarding issues of
> public policy and it seems to
> me that this issue involves
> public policy, albeit public
> policy that may vary from
> government to government. The
> ICANN Bylaws require the Board
> to not only listen to GAC
> advice on public policy
> matters but also respond to it
> and in recent years they have
> shown that they have tried to
> do that. So it seems
> reasonable in my opinion that
> at some point the Board will
> respond to the GAC's request
> to form a community working
> group. They could reject the
> request or they could honor it
> and ask community members to
> participate; if the latter
> happens, the GNSO would be
> asked to participate.
>
> My concern as Council Chair is
> that this is occurring
> extremely late in the game and
> I have communicated that to
> Heather. But the reality is
> that the GAC has made a
> request. I could have waited
> until the Board responds, but
> if recent history is any
> indication, that could take
> weeks or even months. Then if
> they decide to form a
> community WG, the chances of
> further delays in the
> introduction of new gTLDs
> could be further delayed, a
> possibility that I think the
> GNSO should try to minimize.
> Therefore, I decided that I
> would try to take steps to
> respond to the GAC request in
> cooperation with the ALAC who
> also had concerns on this
> topic and see if we could get
> the process moving as quickly
> as possible to hopefully avoid
> further delays or at least
> minimize them.
>
> You did not miss anything.
> There was not a vote by the
> Council saying we would assist
> the GAC in doing this. The
> only thing that happened in
> the Council happened in our
> Wrap-Up meeting in Brussels
> when Bill Drake raised the
> issue and requested that
> interested GNSO participants
> should participate in the
> discussions that were going on
> in the GAC and ALAC. In that
> meeting several people
> volunteered and after that
> meeting others from the GNSO
> volunteered to participate as
> well. There was no opposition
> expressed at that time or
> since then until your message
> was received.
>
> Do you oppose members of the
> GNSO community participating
> in this group?
>
> I believe it was made clear in
> our Wrap-Up meeting that any
> volunteers would be
> participating in their
> individual capacity. Of
> course, to the extent that
> their SGs or Constituencies,
> want them to represent their
> groups' views, nothing would
> prevent them from doing that.
> But the intent has never been
> that anyone would be
> representing the GNSO or
> Council as a whole.
>
> If the Council does not want
> to work cooperatively with the
> GAC and the ALAC and other
> ICANN organizations on this
> topic, I suppose it could
> decide to do that, but I don't
> think there would be any basis
> for preventing individual GNSO
> members from participating or
> even SGs or Constituencies if
> they so desired. My question
> to you in that regard is
> this: what message would that
> send to the community as a
> whole and more particularly to
> the GAC and to governments in
> general?
>
> Regarding process, the ideal
> way for this to come about
> would have first of all been
> for the GAC to raise their
> concerns much earlier in the
> process. Heather says that
> they did but someone I was not
> aware of it until fairly
> recently. The reality is that
> the concerns have been raised
> now. Should we ignore them
> because it is so late or
> should we make a best effort
> to cooperate and see what can
> be done in a timely manner?
>
> I made the latter choice. If
> the timing was different, the
> ideal approach would have been
> for me to wait until the GNSO
> received a request from the
> Board and then present the
> request to the Council to
> decide how to respond, and
> only then start to work on a
> formal charter with the other
> groups involved if the Council
> so decided. If I took that
> approach in the current
> circumstances, we probably
> would have had to wait at
> least until after the Board
> retreat the end of September
> to receive a request from the
> Board and maybe until after
> the October Board meeting.
> Then we would have had to
> decide how to respond in our
> October or November meetings
> whether to participate. The
> we would have had to work with
> the other organizations to
> develop and ultimately approve
> the joint charter. So maybe
> we could have started the work
> group by the end of the year.
>
> One more thought: I
> personally believe that it is
> important for the GNSO to work
> cooperatively with all ICANN
> organizations that are
> impacted by issues of common
> concern and I also believe
> that this situation provides
> an opportunity for us to try
> doing that with the GAC, one
> of the organizations with whom
> we have not had much success
> in doing that in the past.
> Whether we like it or not,
> ICANN processes are supposed
> to bottom-up and inclusive of
> all stakeholders.
> Unfortunately, bottom-up,
> inclusive processes are slow.
> At the same time, where
> possible, I would like to
> speed them up if we can and
> that is what I tried to do in
> this case because I sincerely
> believe that we have a
> responsibility to try and
> bring closure to the new gTLD
> process in an effective manner
> but also in a timely manner.
>
> Chuck
>
> From: Adrian Kinderis
> [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> .au]
> Sent: Thursday, August 19,
> 2010 8:48 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: New gTLD
> Recommendation 6 Community
> Working Group
>
> 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@xxxxxxxx
> nn.org] 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>>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|