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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim,

What do you mean by 'current policy'?  Do you mean the current version
of the guidebook (AGv4)?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 8:47 AM
> To: Bruce Tonkin; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] RE:Board action on recommendation 6
> 
> 
> Thank you Bruce. I took the Board's instructions regarding rec6 to
mean
> (or to also mean) those recs not inconsistent with the current policy.
> 
> Tim
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 15:17:22
> To: Council GNSO<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>