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

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry Chuck I am not sure what that means.

If all we are getting out of this is the ability to say "we listened" then I 
think we are clutching at straws.

Adrian Kinderis



-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:40 PM
To: Adrian Kinderis; Bruce Tonkin; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group

Adrian,

I would argue that communication itself is an achievement.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:55 AM
> To: Bruce Tonkin; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working
> Group
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>