<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group
One of the topics we have discussed a few times in the past with the
ccNSO is how to handle community WGs but there has not been any progress
in that regard. It may be that a community WG PDP may be needed in the
future but that will take considerable work. With the extreme workload
that all of us have had and currently have, it's been difficult to move
forward on this but it could be a topic that we should discuss in our
meeting with the ccNSO in Cartagena.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 11:33 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working
> Group
>
> The rights protection caused delay. And in my opinion and others, It
> was
> not an implentation detail, it resulted in significant policy. And now
> we are evidently stuck with another effort, MAPO. Why wouldn't other
> SGs
> (GNSO or otherwise), expect to have the same privelege? I'm concerned
> that another effort like this will serve as an invitation for just
> that.
>
>
> In any event, I believe the Board should first be allowed to respond
> before the community takes it upon themselves to presume a response.
> And
> we need to think through this community wg concept and what it means
> long term.
>
> Tim
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community
> Working
> > Group
> > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Fri, August 20, 2010 9:52 am
> > To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > 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>>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|