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

[tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]

I also think Bruce makes some very good points. But I would propose that all we 
need is a drafting team to put together such a response to clarify the intent 
of the recommendation, and to perhaps include a suggestion to staff on a 
wording change that maintains the intent but does not create undefined terms.

Forming a community wide WG sounds like some sort of policy endeavor and will 
require a lot more time. I also believe it is less likely to come to a 
conclusion that does not attempt to change the policy.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:09:52 
To: Bruce Tonkin<Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group


Thanks for that additional insight Bruce. It's very useful.

Stéphane

Le 23 août 2010 à 09:53, Bruce Tonkin a écrit :

> 
> 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
> 
> 
>