ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...

I believe that the sentence that Tim is referring to is

"It is our belief that particularly where we were jointly operating as Chartering Organisations or in Cross Community mode this would be quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC do wish to do so the ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build better and more robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus built policy processes in ICANN."

I do not claim to speak for Cheryl (but I have copied here on this note), but I will give my views. We tend to use the same words but with many different meanings in ICANN. There is no doubt that the Bylaws give the GNSO Council full and sole control of the gTLD Policy Development Process. The PDP is a very specific process and its outcomes are subject to very special Board treatment. With the current working group model that still gives others (both affiliated with AC/SOa or not) the ability to participate.

But in my mind, the GNSO is not the only part of ICANN which has an interest in the more general gTLD issues and the two recent working group are examples. As indicated in the CCT report recently approved by the GNSO Council, cooperation with other ACs and SOs is desirable. I note that Cheryl did not capitalize Policy or Processes and I think clearly meant the terms in their most general sense.

Despite the general Board rejection of the products of the two recent cross-constituency WGs, I would like to think that we need to continue to use such models when and where it seems to be advantageous. The alternative to the direction indicated by the sentence is that the GNSO or the GNSO Council refuse to participate in activities with the other groups, or that the other groups not be allowed to undertake any gTLD-related discussions on their own unless "led" by the GNSO. I don't think that either would be a desirable way forward.

I do not see any of this diluting the role of the GNSO and GNSO Council. It may make things more complex at times, but if that is the price to pay for good outcomes, I think it may be a worthwhile trade-off.


At 06/10/2010 11:18 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Well Bill, if that was all it was about that might be true. But the
second sentence of the first paragraph of the excerpt clearly indicates
a bigger picture goal. So perhaps how we proceed all depends on how we
do it and what it involves. Getting more info on the Board's decisions
is one thing, extending it beyond that is another.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>