[council] FW: the topic of new gTLDs and the role of gNSO Council

[Marilyn Cade]

Dear Avri, my personal views, at a. First read, are in short style  below. Am on Blkberry. Limitation. Apologies for abrupt resp. Style.

1. NO.  I consider this aberrant from my expectations as someone who participated in the concept of binding consensus policy. If the communities expectations of the role of consensus policy and its intregrity is different from bd, this gap needs to be closed.
2. Can't wait to read the doc. Can't open on blkberry. I would not recommend bd est policy. Is policy council job. 

3. More on this tomorrow.

Finally, this is a discussion that we should have. 

Well documented research athat gathers the history, as it seems staff has provided us supports the role and work of Council. Who owns policy mkg in this area, and shares some aspects in some areas, with others.
I am on a train and will be home around midnight. I will read Olaf's document with great interest. Sounds like it is a contribution to Council's work.


-----Original Message-----
From: avri doria <avri at acm.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:21:54 
To:Olof Nordling <olof.nordling at icann.org>,       Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at icann.org>
Cc:"<council at gnso.icann.org>" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] FW: the topic of new gTLDs and the role of gNSO Council


On 27 jul 2005, at 08.38, Olof Nordling wrote:
> and here comes a first draft for your reading
> enjoyment, see attachment.
>
> <Rationale for new TLDs.doc>

Thank you.

I have some initial questions on my first reading of this, very useful, 
synopsis. If any of these questions is naive, please forgive me.  While 
very interesting, it is a lot to digest.  And with the meeting 
tomorrow, I figured I better get my questions aired while there was 
still daylight somewhere.


1. The phrase "Where feasible and appropriate", and other similar exit 
clauses are used frequently.  Is there some normalized way of making 
and substantiating a decision to deviate due to feasible and 
appropriate circumstances?  Or is this completely at the board's 
discretion.  I.e. can they deviate from the by-laws and consensus 
decisions whenever they, independently, decide that is is appropriate 
to do so?

2. I found it interesting that a policy body recommended that the Board 
establish a policy.
On reading the recommendations themselves, they seemed to offer more 
guidelines for policy as opposed to specific policy recommendations.  
Is this the normal way in which the policy councils interact with the 
Board and Staff?  Should it be?

3. The Yokahama minutes seem to indicate that this decision applies to 
a pilot or proof of concept.

> The extent to which selection of the proposal would lead to an 
> effective "proof of concept" concerning the introduction of top-level 
> domains in the future, including the diversity the proposal would 
> bring to the program, such as fully open top level domains, restricted 
> and chartered domains with limited scope, noncommercial domains, and 
> personal domains; and a variety of business models and geographic 
> locations.


Can this be read as indicating that at some point in the future, the 
concept would have been proved and a new policy would be established.

Further, the DNSO council statement from 2000 indicates:

>  we recommend to the Board that a limited  number of new top-level 
> domains be introduced initially and that  the future introduction of 
> additional top-level domains be done only after careful evaluation of 
> the initial introduction.
>

Has this careful evaluation been done.  And who is responsible for this 
evaluation?  I would assume that following this evaluation, new policy 
recommendations might be reasonable.  Is this the period for that 
evaluation?

4.  from board minutes 31 July 2003

> Whereas ICANN is also committed to define and implement a predictable 
> strategy for selecting new gtlds using straightforward, transparent, 
> and objective procedures that preserve the stability of the Internet 
> (development of strategy is to be completed by September 30, 2004 and 
> implementation to commence by December 31, 2004).


Has the strategy published 30 September 2004 been adopted? And if so, 
where are we in its timeline at present?  I ask because the document 
still lists itself as a draft.

In any case, it looks like the GNSO, ccNSO, and advsories have certain 
responsibilities between them in this process:

- create and implement procedures for designation of TLD Registries
- public explanation of the process
- selection criteria
- rationale for selection decisions.

Is this what we are, or should be, in the midst of doing?

Since the recommendations for the initial test run of TLD assignments 
has pretty much run its course, except perhaps for the final evaluation 
of success, are we at a point where we should be making policy 
recommendations for a fair, transparent and predictable ongoing 
process?



Thanks

a.


Regards,
Marilyn Cade