RE: [council] Updated draft Terms of Reference for a community WG charter on "Recommendation 6"

["Andrei Kolesnikov" <andrei@xxxxxxxx>]

Bill, Stephaine, this recalls my idea two months ago that MAPO panel
must be GAC driven. I was crucified by legal guys, mixed with dust and
sent to hell. There are some things which cannot be measured by
existing legal theories. The politics goes ego driven. And
given example about ITU October session is not a fantasy. This is what will 
happen. MAPO opposition will fuel the issue with IP addresses 
distribution issue. When people start arguing using "stability of DNS"
it smells. I think the best solution will be to give the issue back 
to GAC. gNSO is not presenting nations, governments or national cultures
in ICANN. GAC does, at least official part of mentioned.
What do we want to achieve on Sept. 13th? Solution? Or structured well
written "NO to MAPO"? We can not do solution, we not experts in cultures.
If the group says no, "imperialistic USA driven ICANN experts denied to
consider very important national issues"

--andrei

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:42 PM
> To: Stéphane Van Gelder
> Cc: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Updated draft Terms of Reference for a community
> WG charter on "Recommendation 6"
> 
> 
> Hi Stéphane
> 
> Ok, understood.  It's not obvious to me that giving this a little more
> time to try to reach consensus would single-handidly bring to a
> screeching halt an otherwise rapid roll out, but whatever, let's leave
> aside that hardy perennial.  Here's another scenario.  On the one hand,
> things get a bit contentious with the US, Canada, and other friendly
> OECD types that have been drivers here.  Maybe can be smoothed over,
> but could play badly in the beltway.   On the other hand, the
> governments (including some represented in GAC) that have been
> persistently critical of ICANN, and in particular express grave concern
> about ICANN being ill-suited to the adoption of the global public
> policy frameworks they insist are needed, go to the ITU Plenipotentiary
> in October and say see, ICANN's this American-dominated corporate cabal
> that doesn't take our concerns seriously, even on something as
> fundamental to our sovereignty as 'sensitive' strings.   Which feeds
> into the other narratives and ambi!
>  tions in play, and could increase support for various problematic
> positions and outcomes with which ICANN and the Internet more generally
> will have to contend going forward.  Who knows, maybe we can even
> breath some new life into the 'global registry' proposal.  That'd be a
> nice trick.
> 
> I guess we just have different views on how to deal with governments
> and whether it matters.
> 
> Talk to you soon,
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Aug 26, 2010, at 6:54 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > I can only concur with Tim's response. If you are asking me to
> justify a WG that I don't even think should exist in the first place at
> this late stage in the new gTLD program discussions, I'm afraid I
> cannot.
> >
> > But given that this WG exists, I think it crucial that it be given a
> timeline that is coherent with what's really happening in the new gTLD
> program at the moment.
> >
> > And that is that the Board is dedicating its September retreat to
> this topic, presumably with the intent of moving it forward enough to
> be able to sign off on a final AG at Cartagena.
> >
> > I am fully supportive of this intent and think that if ICANN is not
> able to bring the program to a close at the end of this year, we risk
> becoming irrelevant and farcical in the eyes of the world at large.
> >
> > It will never be possible to iron out all the issues, but God knows
> we've tried and we haven't taken a foolhardy approach to all of this.
> It is time to launch, now!
> >
> > If there is a need to discuss MAPO then fine, let's do it within the
> allotted timeline.
> >
> > The new gTLD program is a GNSO policy. One of its major premises is
> that new gTLDs should be rolled out in a timely and predictable manner.
> This has not been the case.
> >
> > It's high time the GNSO took a firm stance on defending the policy it
> approved by supermajority vote way back in the summer of 2007.
> >
> > Stéphane
> >
> > Le 26 août 2010 à 18:11, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
> >
> >> This is starting to sound like the Whois debates.
> >>
> >> The GNSO discussed/debated these issues thoroughly and agreed on the
> >> resultant policy. We should continue to support that policy and
> point to
> >> the record of those discussions. If relatively minor changes in the
> >> language would be helpful (legal/illegal vs. mapo), we can simply
> form a
> >> drafting team to work on that and create a response to the GAC and
> >> direction to Staff.
> >>
> >>
> >> Tim
> >>
> >>> -------- Original Message --------
> >>> Subject: Re: [council] Updated draft Terms of Reference for a
> community
> >>> WG charter on "Recommendation 6"
> >>> From: William Drake
> >>> Date: Thu, August 26, 2010 10:59 am
> >>> To: Stéphane Van Gelder
> >>> Cc: Council GNSO
> >>>
> >>> Hi Stéphane
> >>>
> >>> While debating across two lists has some drawbacks, since you've
> raised this here I have two questions.  Given a) the evolving state of
> the GAC's thinking, and the fact that it's divided a bit with a few
> pushing a stance that arguably is inconsistent and potentially worse
> than MAPO while many other members appear not to have settled on a
> stance and weighed in as yet, and b) there's a whole AC (ALAC) that
> opposes MAPO as is, a position with which NCUC concurs,
> >>>
> >>> *could you give me some vision of the scenario in which we resolve
> everything on a consensual basis in less than three weeks?  how does
> that work, the two AC's and other unhappy types just relent and say
> never mind, sorry to have disturbed you, we're fine with it as is?
> >>> *what kind of signal would a hard deadline of 13 Sept convey to the
> GAC about the seriousness with which we regard their objections and the
> extent to which we are prepared to engage with them in problem solving?
> >>>
> >>> Just wondering,
> >>>
> >>> Bill
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Aug 26, 2010, at 10:37 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> >>> As an FYI to the Council, I think I should add to Liz' message that
> the redline part is a discussion that Avri and I have started. I am
> arguing that the WG should be very strict in its goal to finish its
> work by the suggested Sept 13 deadline (which is calculated to allow
> the group's report to be sent to the Board in time for the September
> retreat).
> >>>
> >>> As such, I suggested as you can see in the redline that the word
> "preliminary" be stricken. My rationale being that the group should not
> start off with the expectation that its set deadline is only for an
> interim report, but instead work towards reaching its final objectives
> in the allotted time.
> >>>
> >>> This suggestion has met with widespread support from the group.
> Avri however suggested that written this way, the final sentence of the
> ToR's timeline leaves the document a little unfinished. She suggested
> adding the sentence shown. I am not in favour, as it reintroduces the
> notion that it's OK to miss the deadline and carry on working after
> that deadline has passed. Plus it seems obvious that if the group feels
> there is more work to do, it will undertake to do it.
> >>>
> >>> This point is still being discussed by the group.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Stéphane
> >>>
> >>> Le 26 août 2010 à 02:41, Liz Gasster a écrit :
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> Attached please find the draft charter Terms of Reference for this
> new community working group, as recently updated by drafting team
> participants.  Redline items are noted for further discussion.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, Liz
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>