[council] RE: RE:Board action on recommendation 6

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Once again, thanks Bruce. You have been busy today ;)

It would be helpful from the rest of the Board to know if they think the same 
thing you do?

I find it a little disconcerting that one Board member has to come out and 
describe how *they* interpreted a Board Resolution.

Maybe the resolutions need to be clearer.

I agree the Council should put together a view and push it back to the Board 
just to know that we are on the same page. It would also be helpful for us to 
know that the Board are interpreting it in the same way you have, otherwise how 
do we compare pages? 

Adrian Kinderis


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 4:17 PM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] RE:Board action on recommendation 6


Hello All,

Reading the various discussions on the Council list, it appears that the
GNSO believes that the Board dismissed or disagreed with the work from
the working group on recommendation 6.

The Board resolution stated;

"The Board acknowledges receipt of the Rec6CWG report. This is a
difficult issue, and the work of the community in developing these
recommendations is appreciated. The Board has discussed this important
issue for the past three years.

The Board agrees that ultimate responsibility for the new gTLD program
rests with the Board. The Board, however, wishes to rely on the
determinations of experts regarding these issues.

The Board will accept the Rec6 CWG recommendations that are not
inconsistent with the existing process, as this can be achieved before
the opening of the first gTLD application round, and will work to
resolve any inconsistencies. Staff will consult with the Board for
further guidance as required."


I interpreted that as saying that the Board broadly agreed with the
direction of most of the recommendations from the working group.  The
outcomes of which will be seen in the next draft of the guidebook.  e.g
no longer using the term MAPO.

The only clear disagreement was using the Board of 21 people to directly
try to interpret international law and act as some form of dispute panel
on matters relating to recommendation 6.  Most of the Board, including
me, has no such legal training that would be needed to do that.  The
Board is not the supreme court.    Instead we prefer to use a panel of
experts (e.g judges) that are familiar with international law to reach a
judgement.  Ultimately the Board can over-rule that judgement as a last
resort (and there are various mechanisms of appeal available for this -
such as reconsideration requests, IRP panels etc).

Anyway I would be interested to hear how the GNSO has interpreted the
Board resolution so that misunderstandings can be cleared up.

In terms of any special papers - from my recollection we only had the
GNSO paper to read.  So you already have the document that we relied on.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin