[council] Next steps with the new gTLD recommendations

Ross Rader ross at tucows.com
Wed May 30 14:11:42 UTC 2007

Speaking as a councilor who has not materially participated in the 
committee, it would be my strong preference to deal with specific 
recommendations and understand the thinking that went into each. I do 
not support simply moving the report forward in an omnibus manner at 
this phase of the council's work.

I think Avri has layed out a very reasonable approach to finalizing this 
work as I believe it would better help me understand the scope of issues 
and consideration that I am being asked to vote on.


Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
> I would like to comment on a few points.
> I agree that the GNSO must not become a block to new TLDs and that 
> getting this policy developed is one of our highest priorities.  But I 
> also think we need to produce a policy recommendation that is complete 
> and balanced enough to be able to achieve consensus, if possible, as 
> well as address the complex interplay of elements with a transparent, 
> open, predictable and workable solution.  While delaying the release of 
> this policy is problematic, coming out with a policy that is either not 
> finished or does not have consensus would, to my mind, be worse.  I am 
> not arguing for the perfect solution and am willing to satisfice, but I 
> am arguing for a solution that is well formed, workable and meets ICANN 
> mission and core values as a minimal condition.
> In answer to your specific question, personally, I believe that we will 
> have to talk through each of the recommendations separately to determine 
> the council's, as a council not a committee of the whole, level of 
> support for each recommendation.  I think several questions need to be 
> considered:
> - to what degree have we reached consensus on the recommendations?  
> While level of support was roughly measured on each of the 
> recommendations by the chair, those levels of support have never been 
> formalized with a list of councilors pro and con.
> - to what extent does the council accept the aggregation of the results 
> from the 3 WGs (IDN, RN, PRO) into the committees draft final report.  
> These WGs were neither the council nor the committee of the whole itself 
> and their recommendations need to be evaluated by the council in 
> relation to their inclusion in the new GTLD recommendations.
> - in those cases where we have reached some sort of consensus, does the 
> text clearly represent what people are agreeing to? there were often 
> unresolved nuances in the discussions where we just moved on to the next 
> question perhaps to return at some future time to the open issues.  On 
> several occasions, the level of support was determined while something 
> was still being discussed and where the wording was still somewhat 
> fluid.  Does the text satisfy those who support the recommendation?
> Assuming that there is strong support for a recommendation as written, 
> we should be able to confirm that support with a list of every 
> councillor that openly supports the position relatively quickly.  In 
> places where we do not have strong support for a recommendation we 
> should be able to indentify that quickly as well and add the issue to 
> the 'work to be done' list.  I think doing this work is an integral part 
> of:
>> wherein the Council will work towards achieving a Supermajority Vote 
>> to present to the Board.
> and something we must do before we ask others to consider the report.
> I also think we need to take a formal vote at the end on the full and 
> final-final report before sending it off to the Board as required by 
> by-laws. And we will need to decided as a council whether there may be 
> issues that require more expert opinion as indicated in the by-laws 10b:
>>     . The Council may, if it so chooses, solicit the opinions of 
>> outside advisors at its final meeting. The opinions of these advisors, 
>> if relied upon by the Council, shall be (i) embodied in the Council's 
>> report to the Board, (ii) specifically identified as coming from an 
>> outside advisor; and (iii) be accompanied by a detailed statement of 
>> the advisor's (x) qualifications and relevant experience; and (y) 
>> potential conflicts of interest.
> thanks for asking
> a.
> On 28 maj 2007, at 17.58, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
>> Hello All,
>> With respect to the Council meeting on 7 June, I would like to get a
>> sense of how the Council wants to handle the current new gTLD
>> recommendations.
>> As others have pointed out, some of the recommendations require further
>> work with respect to developing dispute resolution processes.     There
>> are also no doubt some recommendations with stronger support than
>> others.    The intent is that the recommendations as currently drafted
>> by staff are capable of supermajority support based on the discussions
>> during the new gTLD committee meetings.
>> My current concern is that if we don't move the work we have done to
>> some kind of vote - which may accept all or some of the recommendations
>> by super-majority vote - we are in danger of losing the consensus that
>> has been built up through many meetings.   I also feel we are at the
>> point of diminishing returns.   No significant new issues were raised in
>> Lisbon that had not already been discussed in the new gTLD committee.
>> I feel that there is a community expectation that the GNSO Council
>> either conclude its work, or at least identify which bits are concluded
>> to allow the Board to consider the recommendations and to allow staff to
>> begin to do further work.    We don't want the GNSO to be seen as the
>> barrier to new TLDs (either IDN or non-IDN based).
>> If we can't make some sort of statement about the level of consensus of
>> the recommendations, it becomes hard to justify ICANN staff spending
>> additional time working on the implementation details.
>> I expect that as staff begin working on the implementation details of
>> dispute processes and other implementation details, that they may seek
>> further clarification of the recommendation, or even recommend the
>> removal of a recommendation if not external dispute process can be
>> developed.     I would also expect that we will get more input on the
>> dispute processes once detailed drafts are published - this will ensure
>> that issues such as freedom of speech are properly addressed in the
>> dispute processes.
>> No doubt as new people become involved in ICANN and the GNSO - there
>> will be desire to reset the clock, and start the policy development
>> again.  I feel however that we will never get a perfect answer, and that
>> it is better to proceed in such a way that minimises risk in the first
>> round, but also allows flexibility to update the recommendations based
>> on experience of the first round.
>> It would be useful to hear the views of Council members on this topic
>> via the Council mailing list prior to the Council meeting next week.
>> Regards,
>> Bruce Tonkin

More information about the council mailing list