[council] Next steps with the new gTLD recommendations

Thomas Keller tom at schlund.de
Wed May 30 14:26:05 UTC 2007

I concure with this view.



Am 30.05.2007 schrieb Ross Rader:
> 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.
> -ross
> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >



(oo)    /|\	A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w  

More information about the council mailing list