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 share Tim's concerns.


Le 6 oct. 2010 à 21:27, Tim Ruiz a écrit :

> The new gTLD issues are related to GNSO specific policy. I do not
> believe it was appropriate for a CWG to self form to deal with what it
> chose to call an implementation issue any more than it was for the Board
> to do the same thing with the IRT. At least with the latter the Board
> eventually sent it back to where it should have been dealt with in the
> first place, the GNSO. So I was pleased to see the Board response to the
> policy changes proposed by the MAPO CWG. 
> If we continue down a path of allowing and even supporting such out of
> band efforts, then eventually such out of band CWGs will become the norm
> and used by SGs, ACs, etc. to get their pet issues on the table without
> going through the accepted processes. Setting policy in that manner is
> not provided for anywhere in ICANN's bylaws, and I think for good
> reason.
> As Allen points out, the GNSO policy development process allows for
> participation of all in the community in its WGs. The current CWG
> efforts have not been to deal with some etherial, non-policy related
> issues. They are being used to attempt to take a short cut around the
> established GNSO proceses. IMHO, both the ALAC and the GAC are no longer
> content with having an Advisory role within the community, and perhaps
> they never were, but that's where we are at. If that is going to change
> I would like it to be a frank, open, and direct discussion and not as a
> result of an unintended imprimatur by the GNSO.
> If we stick solely to what Bill has suggested in regards to this recent
> ALAC request, that may be fine in this instance, but I am concerned
> about the tone and implications of the entire message from them and
> would not want to imply that we agree with any other part of it. And as
> I said earlier, I think some consideration should be given to whether
> separate inquiries would be better. 
> Tim
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: 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...
> > From: Alan Greenberg 
> > Date: Wed, October 06, 2010 11:49 am
> > To: 
> > Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > Alan
> > 
> > 
> > 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. 
> > 
> > Tim
> > 
> > 

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