[council] Re: Response to Stephane's Request for Comment - Second Milestone Report

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Carlton, most helpful.

Just a few additional comments embedded in the text below.

Stéphane



Le 13 mai 2011 à 21:43, Carlton Samuels a écrit :

> Dear Stephane:
> 
> Rafik and I have conversed and offer our responses to your queries inline.
>  
> Hi Rafik, Carlton,
> 
> Having read the JAS WG report, I want to congratulate you and the group on 
> the impressive amount of work that has been achieved.
> Many thanks for your recognition.  The drafting team of Evan Leibovitch, 
> Cintra Sooknanan and Andrew Mack were especially taxed to produce it.  I am 
> personally pleased to note that despite the herculean task, they never 
> faltered in their commitment to the group. 

(SVG) Please convey my and the GNSO Council's thanks to Evan, Cintra and Andrew.

> 
> I have several questions which I thought I'd put to the list so that they 
> might benefit any discussion we might have on this during our next Council 
> meeting. These are to help my personal understanding of the report and what 
> the group is recommending.
> 
> On page 3, it says that the group is responding to requests from its charters 
> and the Board and the GAC. Should we understand by this statement that the 
> group has been taking input directly from the Board and the GAC, on top of 
> its chartering organisations?
>  
> Not exactly. Recall the Brussels and SFO ICANN meetings.  Requests were made 
> in PUBLIC  sessions  and specifically addressed to the CO's by the GAC and 
> members of the Board, including the leadership.  These calls established the 
> referential integrity that you query and formed the basis for the WG's  
> response.  As a member of one of the chartering organisations, I can tell you 
> the ALAC resolved that these were indeed actionable, even if the answers 
> tended to a requirement for additional focus of the WG.  The ALAC itself 
> voted to extend the charter of the WG.  In subsequent correspondence, the GAC 
> publicly declared its intent to await the WG's report to further their 
> interest in seeking support for LDCs and governmental entities that might 
> have needs similar to those being addressed by the WG. 
> 
> 
> As a group belonging to what is peddled to be an open, multi-stakeholder and 
> transparent body, the WG welcomed input from anyone who cared to offer it.  
> For to refuse input is to deny the diversity of opinions that we seek in 
> order to reach the best possible consensus.  You might also wish to know my 
> personal guiding philosophy is to give all heresies the same weight, 
> regardless of provenance, high or low church. 
> 
> On page 4 it says "This WG is comprised of members who support these aims and 
> are committed to lowering the barriers to full participation in the gTLD 
> program by a truly global and inclusive community." As co-chairs, do you feel 
> the group's membership was representative of a sufficiently diverse set of 
> views, opinions and approaches?
> 
> We can acknowledge that the group represents a lively and diverse set of 
> opinions and approaches, as witnessed by the lively debate and sometimes 
> apparent slow progress that the group exhibited.
>  
> The active members were geographically dispersed and came with experiences 
> not only from their own lives but as actors in various ICANN constituencies.
>  
> All opinions and options presented were considered by the WG, though the 
> challenges of reaching consensus certainly prevented some from making it 
> through the process.
> 
> While we cannot say for certain, we have a sense that all of our members 
> subscribe to the principle of a truly global and interoperable Internet 
> supporting a truly global and inclusive community.
> 
>  
> We further did not detect the wish of any member to deny any group or party 
> meaningful and full participation in the new gTLD program.
> 
> Page 6 says that one criteria for eligibility is "Service in an under‐served 
> language, the presence of which on the Internet has been limited". This is 
> further explained in 3.1.2. But I don't understand what the metrics for these 
> criteria are? What makes a language under-served and how can we measure if 
> its presence on the Internet is limited?
>  
> In this area and specially with respect to IDNs, details such as these are 
> amongst some topics for which research is ongoing and required.  The 
> principle has broad acceptance and the group  remains in contemplation, 
> seeking more precise metrics. This is but one basis for the WG's continued 
> work.  Your personal input - or by extension, the GNSO Council's - would be 
> most welcome here.

(SVG) I understand from your response that these metrics have not been set yet. 
My personal opinion is that this is required if the WG's recommendations re 
under-serve languages are to be enactable. Also, while I am sure that 
individual members of the GNSO Council would be happy to provide input here, it 
is not the Council's place as a whole to do so. The WG is tasked with working 
out the recommendations, and those then go to the Council, who can send them 
back to the WG and ask for extra work or clarifications if that is deemed 
necessary. This should not be reversed.

> 
>  
> 
> Page 9, section 3.3 goes back to my earlier question about where and from 
> whom the group has been getting input. Here it says that the group had agreed 
> on one set of recommendations (govs not entitled to support) but are now 
> working to change those after the GAC has asked them to. Do you, as 
> co-chairs, feel comfortable with this?
>  
> We reiterate our guiding operational principle: all input, regardless of 
> source, the GAC included, is being welcomed and given due consideration by 
> the WG. We feel this is the minimum baseline for transparency and open-ness 
> to which we have subscribed as members of the ICANN community.  With regard 
> to an expansion of views by this WG, we believe it is not only appropriate 
> but rational that they be noted and accommodated.
>  
> Do remember that adoption of any view to the policy framework will come after 
> a public comment phase. So there is ample time for the entire community to 
> weigh in. You might also wish to know my personal philosophical view is to 
> abhor all claims of inerrancy by any person or group in this environment. 
> 
> 
> All this aside, we assure you that you can be comforted that the WG has not 
> demonstrated fealty to any single sourced point of view, be that source the 
> GAC or the Business Constituency. As such, we hope and trust we have given 
> every point of view an opportunity to be heard and, maybe, influence an 
> outcome acceptable to most. 
>  
> Based on the  input received, the current recommendation stands.  However, 
> the GAC was requested to provide and has promised additional information to 
> fully air their concerns surrounding the eligibility of government and 
> governmental entities for support. The WG will deal with them when they 
> arrive as we would any submission from any area of our global community.  
> That is, to consider them soberly and decide whether they are embraceable, in 
> context.
> 
> Page 12, section 4.2 Do you not feel the deferment of DNSSEC is not in 
> keeping with ICANN's mission of ensuring a stable and secure Internet? As 
> DNSSEC is such a clear security feature, would it not be better to seek 
> (financial) support for applicants that find the cost of implementing it too 
> high, rather than suggesting they need not implement it upon start-up (with 
> the risk that it may then be years before they actually do implement it)?
>  
> We agree with your position here. A stable and secure Internet is a 
> fundamental principle to support in the public interest. We take it that the 
> security features of DNSSEC are no longer controversial. So we are in favour 
> of implementing DNSSEC from inception and without exceptions.  In this 
> respect, such support as is necessary to allow applicants to comply with 
> DNSSEC implementation is rightly considered part of the basket of support for 
> needy applications. We are sure that as a member in good standing of the 
> registrar/registry constituency, your personal endorsement will serve to 
> invigorate their support in this area.
>  
> 
> On the same section, what does the group mean by "relaxed VI rules" in the 
> light of the latest Board resolution on VI?
> 
> To our minds, a close reading of the text of the latest contextual Board 
> resolution renders "relaxed VI rules" as settled ICANN policy. This reference 
> also builds on the first Milestone Report.  The WG consensus was for 
> VI-related restrictions to be relaxed for suitable applications. If the Board 
> wishes them relaxed for all applications, that also accomplishes our 
> objective.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Carlton 
> 
>