<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7653.38">
<TITLE>Re: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I do agree with Tim that it would be good to get a little input from the Board before we expend all this effort.<BR>
<BR>
I sense that a lot has happened behind the scenes here but I don't have a good handle right now on how serious an issue this is in terms of delaying new TLDs.<BR>
Hopefully, more clarity will come next week when the first call takes place.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
----------------<BR>
Caroline Greer<BR>
Director of Policy<BR>
dotMobi<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org><BR>
To: cgomes@verisign.com <cgomes@verisign.com><BR>
Cc: adrian@ausregistry.com.au <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>; council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org><BR>
Sent: Fri Aug 20 16:32:43 2010<BR>
Subject: RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The rights protection caused delay. And in my opinion and others, It was<BR>
not an implentation detail, it resulted in significant policy. And now<BR>
we are evidently stuck with another effort, MAPO. Why wouldn't other SGs<BR>
(GNSO or otherwise), expect to have the same privelege? I'm concerned<BR>
that another effort like this will serve as an invitation for just that.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
In any event, I believe the Board should first be allowed to respond<BR>
before the community takes it upon themselves to presume a response. And<BR>
we need to think through this community wg concept and what it means<BR>
long term.<BR>
<BR>
Tim <BR>
<BR>
> -------- Original Message --------<BR>
> Subject: RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working<BR>
> Group<BR>
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com><BR>
> Date: Fri, August 20, 2010 9:52 am<BR>
> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com><BR>
> Cc: <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>, <council@gnso.icann.org><BR>
><BR>
> Tim,<BR>
><BR>
> In saying "Your arguments below open the door for every SG with a<BR>
> concern to create further delay." do you mean GNSO SG? If so, I do not<BR>
> see how that is the case any more so than other implementation issues<BR>
> that have been raised such as regarding rights protection<BR>
> (recommendation 3).<BR>
><BR>
> Chuck<BR>
><BR>
> > -----Original Message-----<BR>
> > From: Tim Ruiz [<A HREF="mailto:tim@godaddy.com">mailto:tim@godaddy.com</A>]<BR>
> > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:29 AM<BR>
> > To: Gomes, Chuck<BR>
> > Cc: adrian@ausregistry.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org<BR>
> > Subject: RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working<BR>
> > Group<BR>
> ><BR>
> > The GAC advises the Board, and I believe it is presumptive of the GNSO<BR>
> > Council to not wait for the Board reply. I also would prefer to<BR>
> instead<BR>
> > encourage the Board to just say NO and allow no further delays. The<BR>
> > GNSO<BR>
> > has established a policy and we should be working towards its<BR>
> > implementation not against it. Your arguments below open the door for<BR>
> > every SG with a concern to create further delay.<BR>
> ><BR>
> > I am also not too sure about this so-called "community working group"<BR>
> > concept and what it means long term in regards to policy development<BR>
> > (or<BR>
> > implementation details if you like that term better).<BR>
> ><BR>
> ><BR>
> > Tim<BR>
> ><BR>
> > > -------- Original Message --------<BR>
> > > Subject: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working<BR>
> > > Group<BR>
> > > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com><BR>
> > > Date: Fri, August 20, 2010 8:54 am<BR>
> > > To: "Adrian Kinderis" <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>, "Council<BR>
> > > GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org><BR>
> > ><BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > I would like to understand<BR>
> > > your position better Adrian<BR>
> > > and also explain mine.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > Do you not think that the GNSO<BR>
> > > should try to work together<BR>
> > > with the GAC on their concerns<BR>
> > > regarding the implementation<BR>
> > > of new gTLD Recommendation 6?<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > The GAC has an important<BR>
> > > advisory role to the ICANN<BR>
> > > community regarding issues of<BR>
> > > public policy and it seems to<BR>
> > > me that this issue involves<BR>
> > > public policy, albeit public<BR>
> > > policy that may vary from<BR>
> > > government to government. The<BR>
> > > ICANN Bylaws require the Board<BR>
> > > to not only listen to GAC<BR>
> > > advice on public policy<BR>
> > > matters but also respond to it<BR>
> > > and in recent years they have<BR>
> > > shown that they have tried to<BR>
> > > do that. So it seems<BR>
> > > reasonable in my opinion that<BR>
> > > at some point the Board will<BR>
> > > respond to the GAC's request<BR>
> > > to form a community working<BR>
> > > group. They could reject the<BR>
> > > request or they could honor it<BR>
> > > and ask community members to<BR>
> > > participate; if the latter<BR>
> > > happens, the GNSO would be<BR>
> > > asked to participate.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > My concern as Council Chair is<BR>
> > > that this is occurring<BR>
> > > extremely late in the game and<BR>
> > > I have communicated that to<BR>
> > > Heather. But the reality is<BR>
> > > that the GAC has made a<BR>
> > > request. I could have waited<BR>
> > > until the Board responds, but<BR>
> > > if recent history is any<BR>
> > > indication, that could take<BR>
> > > weeks or even months. Then if<BR>
> > > they decide to form a<BR>
> > > community WG, the chances of<BR>
> > > further delays in the<BR>
> > > introduction of new gTLDs<BR>
> > > could be further delayed, a<BR>
> > > possibility that I think the<BR>
> > > GNSO should try to minimize.<BR>
> > > Therefore, I decided that I<BR>
> > > would try to take steps to<BR>
> > > respond to the GAC request in<BR>
> > > cooperation with the ALAC who<BR>
> > > also had concerns on this<BR>
> > > topic and see if we could get<BR>
> > > the process moving as quickly<BR>
> > > as possible to hopefully avoid<BR>
> > > further delays or at least<BR>
> > > minimize them.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > You did not miss anything.<BR>
> > > There was not a vote by the<BR>
> > > Council saying we would assist<BR>
> > > the GAC in doing this. The<BR>
> > > only thing that happened in<BR>
> > > the Council happened in our<BR>
> > > Wrap-Up meeting in Brussels<BR>
> > > when Bill Drake raised the<BR>
> > > issue and requested that<BR>
> > > interested GNSO participants<BR>
> > > should participate in the<BR>
> > > discussions that were going on<BR>
> > > in the GAC and ALAC. In that<BR>
> > > meeting several people<BR>
> > > volunteered and after that<BR>
> > > meeting others from the GNSO<BR>
> > > volunteered to participate as<BR>
> > > well. There was no opposition<BR>
> > > expressed at that time or<BR>
> > > since then until your message<BR>
> > > was received.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > Do you oppose members of the<BR>
> > > GNSO community participating<BR>
> > > in this group?<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > I believe it was made clear in<BR>
> > > our Wrap-Up meeting that any<BR>
> > > volunteers would be<BR>
> > > participating in their<BR>
> > > individual capacity. Of<BR>
> > > course, to the extent that<BR>
> > > their SGs or Constituencies,<BR>
> > > want them to represent their<BR>
> > > groups' views, nothing would<BR>
> > > prevent them from doing that.<BR>
> > > But the intent has never been<BR>
> > > that anyone would be<BR>
> > > representing the GNSO or<BR>
> > > Council as a whole.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > If the Council does not want<BR>
> > > to work cooperatively with the<BR>
> > > GAC and the ALAC and other<BR>
> > > ICANN organizations on this<BR>
> > > topic, I suppose it could<BR>
> > > decide to do that, but I don't<BR>
> > > think there would be any basis<BR>
> > > for preventing individual GNSO<BR>
> > > members from participating or<BR>
> > > even SGs or Constituencies if<BR>
> > > they so desired. My question<BR>
> > > to you in that regard is<BR>
> > > this: what message would that<BR>
> > > send to the community as a<BR>
> > > whole and more particularly to<BR>
> > > the GAC and to governments in<BR>
> > > general?<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > Regarding process, the ideal<BR>
> > > way for this to come about<BR>
> > > would have first of all been<BR>
> > > for the GAC to raise their<BR>
> > > concerns much earlier in the<BR>
> > > process. Heather says that<BR>
> > > they did but someone I was not<BR>
> > > aware of it until fairly<BR>
> > > recently. The reality is that<BR>
> > > the concerns have been raised<BR>
> > > now. Should we ignore them<BR>
> > > because it is so late or<BR>
> > > should we make a best effort<BR>
> > > to cooperate and see what can<BR>
> > > be done in a timely manner?<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > I made the latter choice. If<BR>
> > > the timing was different, the<BR>
> > > ideal approach would have been<BR>
> > > for me to wait until the GNSO<BR>
> > > received a request from the<BR>
> > > Board and then present the<BR>
> > > request to the Council to<BR>
> > > decide how to respond, and<BR>
> > > only then start to work on a<BR>
> > > formal charter with the other<BR>
> > > groups involved if the Council<BR>
> > > so decided. If I took that<BR>
> > > approach in the current<BR>
> > > circumstances, we probably<BR>
> > > would have had to wait at<BR>
> > > least until after the Board<BR>
> > > retreat the end of September<BR>
> > > to receive a request from the<BR>
> > > Board and maybe until after<BR>
> > > the October Board meeting.<BR>
> > > Then we would have had to<BR>
> > > decide how to respond in our<BR>
> > > October or November meetings<BR>
> > > whether to participate. The<BR>
> > > we would have had to work with<BR>
> > > the other organizations to<BR>
> > > develop and ultimately approve<BR>
> > > the joint charter. So maybe<BR>
> > > we could have started the work<BR>
> > > group by the end of the year.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > One more thought: I<BR>
> > > personally believe that it is<BR>
> > > important for the GNSO to work<BR>
> > > cooperatively with all ICANN<BR>
> > > organizations that are<BR>
> > > impacted by issues of common<BR>
> > > concern and I also believe<BR>
> > > that this situation provides<BR>
> > > an opportunity for us to try<BR>
> > > doing that with the GAC, one<BR>
> > > of the organizations with whom<BR>
> > > we have not had much success<BR>
> > > in doing that in the past.<BR>
> > > Whether we like it or not,<BR>
> > > ICANN processes are supposed<BR>
> > > to bottom-up and inclusive of<BR>
> > > all stakeholders.<BR>
> > > Unfortunately, bottom-up,<BR>
> > > inclusive processes are slow.<BR>
> > > At the same time, where<BR>
> > > possible, I would like to<BR>
> > > speed them up if we can and<BR>
> > > that is what I tried to do in<BR>
> > > this case because I sincerely<BR>
> > > believe that we have a<BR>
> > > responsibility to try and<BR>
> > > bring closure to the new gTLD<BR>
> > > process in an effective manner<BR>
> > > but also in a timely manner.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > Chuck<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > From: Adrian Kinderis<BR>
> > > [<A HREF="mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com">mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com</A><BR>
> > > .au]<BR>
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 19,<BR>
> > > 2010 8:48 PM<BR>
> > > To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO<BR>
> > > Subject: RE: New gTLD<BR>
> > > Recommendation 6 Community<BR>
> > > Working Group<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > I reject the notion of a WG at<BR>
> > > all. IMO it is unnecessary and<BR>
> > > will not provide any useful,<BR>
> > > tactile benefits.<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > Did I miss something here<BR>
> > > Chuck. Was there a vote by the<BR>
> > > Council saying we would assist<BR>
> > > the GAC in doing this?<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > Is there a mechanism by which<BR>
> > > we could stop GNSO<BR>
> > > participation and support?<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > Adrian Kinderis<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > From:<BR>
> > > owner-council@gnso.icann.org<BR>
> > > [<A HREF="mailto:owner-council@gnso.ica">mailto:owner-council@gnso.ica</A><BR>
> > > nn.org] On Behalf Of Gomes,<BR>
> > > Chuck<BR>
> > > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010<BR>
> > > 12:32 AM<BR>
> > > To: Council GNSO<BR>
> > > Subject: [council] New gTLD<BR>
> > > Recommendation 6 Community<BR>
> > > Working Group<BR>
> > > Importance: High<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > Hopefully all of you are aware<BR>
> > > that the GAC requested a<BR>
> > > community working group to<BR>
> > > discuss the implementation of<BR>
> > > the GNSO New gTLD<BR>
> > > Recommendation 6. To<BR>
> > > accommodate that request, the<BR>
> > > list that the GNSO established<BR>
> > > in follow-up to Bill Drake's<BR>
> > > request in our Brussels<BR>
> > > Wrap-Up session to participate<BR>
> > > in the discussions on this<BR>
> > > topic going on within the GAC<BR>
> > > an ALAC will be used for the<BR>
> > > community working group<BR>
> > > discussions.<BR>
> > > Considering how late this is<BR>
> > > happening relative to the new<BR>
> > > gTLD process, Cheryl<BR>
> > > Langdon-Orr, chair of the<BR>
> > > ALAC, and Heather Dryden,<BR>
> > > Chair of the GAC, and I have<BR>
> > > been discussing how to go<BR>
> > > about accommodating the GAC<BR>
> > > request in a timely manner.<BR>
> > > To expedite discussions, we<BR>
> > > decided to prepare an initial<BR>
> > > draft Terms of Reference (ToR)<BR>
> > > for discussion by those who<BR>
> > > have volunteered to<BR>
> > > participate in the group. The<BR>
> > > hope is to very quickly<BR>
> > > finalize the ToR so that<BR>
> > > discussion of the issues may<BR>
> > > begin and thereby have a<BR>
> > > chance of developing<BR>
> > > recommendations for improving<BR>
> > > the implementation plan for<BR>
> > > Recommendation 6 in the Draft<BR>
> > > Application Guidebook, version<BR>
> > > 4.<BR>
> > > As you can see in the draft<BR>
> > > ToR, this is not a PDP. The<BR>
> > > GNSO Council already approved<BR>
> > > Recommendation 6 by a<BR>
> > > super-majority vote. There is<BR>
> > > no intent to undo the intent<BR>
> > > of that recommendation; to do<BR>
> > > that would require a PDP<BR>
> > > because it would be materially<BR>
> > > changing an already approved<BR>
> > > policy recommendation.<BR>
> > > Rather, the intent is to<BR>
> > > explore whether the<BR>
> > > implementation process in<BR>
> > > version 4 of the Guidebook<BR>
> > > could be improved in a way<BR>
> > > that addresses any of the GAC<BR>
> > > and ALAC concerns.<BR>
> > > As all of you know, there is<BR>
> > > no established process for<BR>
> > > community working groups. In<BR>
> > > drafting the initial ToR for<BR>
> > > discussion, we tried to<BR>
> > > accommodate the needs of all<BR>
> > > three organizations especially<BR>
> > > in terms of how they operate,<BR>
> > > which are different in certain<BR>
> > > respects. Please note that<BR>
> > > the group is open to all<BR>
> > > community participants from<BR>
> > > all SOs and ACs and for that<BR>
> > > matter any who are not SO or<BR>
> > > AC participants.<BR>
> > > I believe that this could be<BR>
> > > the first significant effort<BR>
> > > of the GNSO and GAC working<BR>
> > > together in a WG and I am<BR>
> > > hopeful that it will provide<BR>
> > > some lessons for how we can to<BR>
> > > that better on other issues in<BR>
> > > the future, just like the GNSO<BR>
> > > Council discussed with the GAC<BR>
> > > in Brussels. The GAC has an<BR>
> > > important advisory role in<BR>
> > > ICANN policy processes as they<BR>
> > > relate to public policy issues<BR>
> > > and we all know that the Board<BR>
> > > will listen intently to the<BR>
> > > GAC advice on the<BR>
> > > implementation of<BR>
> > > Recommendation 6. Therefore,<BR>
> > > it seemed wise to try to do<BR>
> > > that sooner rather than later<BR>
> > > to minimize any further<BR>
> > > delays.<BR>
> > > I will add this topic to the<BR>
> > > agenda for 26 August but would<BR>
> > > really appreciate it if we can<BR>
> > > discuss it on the list in<BR>
> > > advance.<BR>
> > > Thanks for your cooperation,<BR>
> > > Chuck<BR>
> > ><BR>
> > > <<New gTLD Recommendation 6<BR>
> > > Community Discussion Group<BR>
> > > Terms of Reference v3.docx>><BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>