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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim,

In saying "Your arguments below open the door for every SG with a
concern to create further delay." do you mean GNSO SG?  If so, I do not
see how that is the case any more so than other implementation issues
that have been raised such as regarding rights protection
(recommendation 3).

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:29 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working
> Group
> 
> 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>>