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

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bruce,

My fear isn't the dialogue. Of course we should always keep the lines of 
communication open.

However, on this occasion there is danger that we are reopening an issue that 
has been closed off for some time now (as you point out) and that I am not sure 
they are going to achieve anything by doing so.

As I said previously I believe the effort will go down the path of VI - promise 
much but deliver little other than further, unnecessary delays.

I am against dialogue on a closed issue.

I am against a futile efforts on an already strained community.

Adrian Kinderis


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:53 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group


Hello Stéphane,

I am not really commenting on the method that the GNSO chooses to reach a 
position on a topic (e.g whether you choose to convene a group with GNSO 
members, or a group with wider ICANN participation).

My main message - was I think that the GNSO needs to respond on a matter that 
relates to GNSO policy.

ie GAC -> ICANN Board -> GNSO

Given the letter came from the GAC - it would certainly make sense for there to 
be a dialogue of some form between the GNSO and the GAC.   Of course it is a 
pity this did not occur around 2006 when there were numerous briefings to the 
GAC on the proposed policy.  A letter such as this should have been sent to the 
GNSO Council years before.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin