[council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group

[Tim Ruiz]

The GAC advises the Board, and I believe it is presumptive of the GNSO
Council to not wait for the Board reply. I also would prefer to instead
encourage the Board to just say NO and allow no further delays. The GNSO
has established a policy and we should be working towards its
implementation not against it. Your arguments below open the door for
every SG with a concern to create further delay.

I am also not too sure about this so-called "community working group"
concept and what it means long term in regards to policy development (or
implementation details if you like that term better).        


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working
> Group
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
> Date: Fri, August 20, 2010 8:54 am
> To: "Adrian Kinderis" <adrian at ausregistry.com.au>,        "Council
> GNSO" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> 
>    I would like to understand
>    your position better Adrian
>    and also explain mine.
> 
>    Do you not think that the GNSO
>    should try to work together
>    with the GAC on their concerns
>    regarding the implementation
>    of new gTLD Recommendation 6?
> 
>    The GAC has an important
>    advisory role to the ICANN
>    community regarding issues of
>    public policy and it seems to
>    me that this issue involves
>    public policy, albeit public
>    policy that may vary from
>    government to government.  The
>    ICANN Bylaws require the Board
>    to not only listen to GAC
>    advice on public policy
>    matters but also respond to it
>    and in recent years they have
>    shown that they have tried to
>    do that.  So it seems
>    reasonable in my opinion that
>    at some point the Board will
>    respond to the GAC's request
>    to form a community working
>    group.  They could reject the
>    request or they could honor it
>    and ask community members to
>    participate; if the latter
>    happens, the GNSO would be
>    asked to participate.
> 
>    My concern as Council Chair is
>    that this is occurring
>    extremely late in the game and
>    I have communicated that to
>    Heather.  But the reality is
>    that the GAC has made a
>    request.  I could have waited
>    until the Board responds, but
>    if recent history is any
>    indication, that could take
>    weeks or even months.  Then if
>    they decide to form a
>    community WG, the chances of
>    further delays in the
>    introduction of new gTLDs
>    could be further delayed, a
>    possibility that I think the
>    GNSO should try to minimize.
>    Therefore, I decided that I
>    would try to take steps to
>    respond to the GAC request in
>    cooperation with the ALAC who
>    also had concerns on this
>    topic and see if we could get
>    the process moving as quickly
>    as possible to hopefully avoid
>    further delays or at least
>    minimize them.
> 
>    You did not miss anything.
>    There was not a vote by the
>    Council saying we would assist
>    the GAC in doing this.  The
>    only thing that happened in
>    the Council happened in our
>    Wrap-Up meeting in Brussels
>    when Bill Drake raised the
>    issue and requested that
>    interested GNSO participants
>    should participate in the
>    discussions that were going on
>    in the GAC and ALAC.  In that
>    meeting several people
>    volunteered and after that
>    meeting others from the GNSO
>    volunteered to participate as
>    well.  There was no opposition
>    expressed at that time or
>    since then until your message
>    was received.
> 
>    Do you oppose members of the
>    GNSO community participating
>    in this group?
> 
>    I believe it was made clear in
>    our Wrap-Up meeting that any
>    volunteers would be
>    participating in their
>    individual capacity.  Of
>    course, to the extent that
>    their SGs or Constituencies,
>    want them to represent their
>    groups' views, nothing would
>    prevent them from doing that.
>    But the intent has never been
>    that anyone would be
>    representing the GNSO or
>    Council as a whole.
> 
>    If the Council does not want
>    to work cooperatively with the
>    GAC and the ALAC and other
>    ICANN organizations on this
>    topic, I suppose it could
>    decide to do that, but I don't
>    think there would be any basis
>    for preventing individual GNSO
>    members from participating or
>    even SGs or Constituencies if
>    they so desired.  My question
>    to you in that regard is
>    this:  what message would that
>    send to the community as a
>    whole and more particularly to
>    the GAC and to governments in
>    general?
> 
>    Regarding process, the ideal
>    way for this to come about
>    would have first of all been
>    for the GAC to raise their
>    concerns much earlier in the
>    process.  Heather says that
>    they did but someone I was not
>    aware of it until fairly
>    recently.  The reality is that
>    the concerns have been raised
>    now.  Should we ignore them
>    because it is so late or
>    should we make a best effort
>    to cooperate and see what can
>    be done in a timely manner?
> 
>    I made the latter choice.  If
>    the timing was different, the
>    ideal approach would have been
>    for me to wait until the GNSO
>    received a request from the
>    Board and then present the
>    request to the Council to
>    decide how to respond, and
>    only then start to work on a
>    formal charter with the other
>    groups involved if the Council
>    so decided.  If I took that
>    approach in the current
>    circumstances, we probably
>    would have had to wait at
>    least until after the Board
>    retreat the end of September
>    to receive a request from the
>    Board and maybe until after
>    the October Board meeting.
>    Then we would have had to
>    decide how to respond in our
>    October or November meetings
>    whether to participate.  The
>    we would have had to work with
>    the other organizations to
>    develop and ultimately approve
>    the joint charter.  So maybe
>    we could have started the work
>    group by the end of the year.
> 
>    One more thought:  I
>    personally believe that it is
>    important for the GNSO to work
>    cooperatively with all ICANN
>    organizations that are
>    impacted by issues of common
>    concern and I also believe
>    that this situation provides
>    an opportunity for us to try
>    doing that with the GAC, one
>    of the organizations with whom
>    we have not had much success
>    in doing that in the past.
>    Whether we like it or not,
>    ICANN processes are supposed
>    to bottom-up and inclusive of
>    all stakeholders.
>    Unfortunately, bottom-up,
>    inclusive processes are slow.
>    At the same time, where
>    possible, I would like to
>    speed them up if we can and
>    that is what I tried to do in
>    this case because I sincerely
>    believe that we have a
>    responsibility to try and
>    bring closure to the new gTLD
>    process in an effective manner
>    but also in a timely manner.
> 
>    Chuck
> 
>    From: Adrian Kinderis
>    [mailto:adrian at ausregistry.com
>    .au]
>    Sent: Thursday, August 19,
>    2010 8:48 PM
>    To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO
>    Subject: RE: New gTLD
>    Recommendation 6 Community
>    Working Group
> 
>    I reject the notion of a WG at
>    all. IMO it is unnecessary and
>    will not provide any useful,
>    tactile benefits.
> 
>    Did I miss something here
>    Chuck. Was there a vote by the
>    Council saying we would assist
>    the GAC in doing this?
> 
>    Is there a mechanism by which
>    we could stop GNSO
>    participation and support?
> 
>    Adrian Kinderis
> 
>    From:
>    owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>    [mailto:owner-council at gnso.ica
>    nn.org] On Behalf Of Gomes,
>    Chuck
>    Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010
>    12:32 AM
>    To: Council GNSO
>    Subject: [council] New gTLD
>    Recommendation 6 Community
>    Working Group
>    Importance: High
> 
>    Hopefully all of you are aware
>    that the GAC requested a
>    community working group to
>    discuss the implementation of
>    the GNSO New gTLD
>    Recommendation 6.  To
>    accommodate that request, the
>    list that the GNSO established
>    in follow-up to Bill Drake's
>    request in our Brussels
>    Wrap-Up session to participate
>    in the discussions on this
>    topic going on within the GAC
>    an ALAC will be used for the
>    community working group
>    discussions.
>    Considering how late this is
>    happening relative to the new
>    gTLD process, Cheryl
>    Langdon-Orr, chair of the
>    ALAC, and Heather Dryden,
>    Chair of the GAC, and I have
>    been discussing how to go
>    about accommodating the GAC
>    request in a timely manner.
>    To expedite discussions, we
>    decided to prepare an initial
>    draft Terms of Reference (ToR)
>    for discussion by those who
>    have volunteered to
>    participate in the group.  The
>    hope is to very quickly
>    finalize the ToR so that
>    discussion of the issues may
>    begin and thereby have a
>    chance of developing
>    recommendations for improving
>    the implementation plan for
>    Recommendation 6 in the Draft
>    Application Guidebook, version
>    4.
>    As you can see in the draft
>    ToR, this is not a PDP.  The
>    GNSO Council already approved
>    Recommendation 6 by a
>    super-majority vote.  There is
>    no intent to undo the intent
>    of that recommendation; to do
>    that would require a PDP
>    because it would be materially
>    changing an already approved
>    policy recommendation.
>    Rather, the intent is to
>    explore whether the
>    implementation process in
>    version 4 of the Guidebook
>    could be improved in a way
>    that addresses any of the GAC
>    and ALAC concerns.
>    As all of you know, there is
>    no established process for
>    community working groups.  In
>    drafting the initial ToR for
>    discussion, we tried to
>    accommodate the needs of all
>    three organizations especially
>    in terms of how they operate,
>    which are different in certain
>    respects.  Please note that
>    the group is open to all
>    community participants from
>    all SOs and ACs and for that
>    matter any who are not SO or
>    AC participants.
>    I believe that this could be
>    the first significant effort
>    of the GNSO and GAC working
>    together in a WG and I am
>    hopeful that it will provide
>    some lessons for how we can to
>    that better on other issues in
>    the future, just like the GNSO
>    Council discussed with the GAC
>    in Brussels.  The GAC has an
>    important advisory role in
>    ICANN policy processes as they
>    relate to public policy issues
>    and we all know that the Board
>    will listen intently to the
>    GAC advice on the
>    implementation of
>    Recommendation 6.  Therefore,
>    it seemed wise to try to do
>    that sooner rather than later
>    to minimize any further
>    delays.
>    I will add this topic to the
>    agenda for 26 August but would
>    really appreciate it if we can
>    discuss it on the list in
>    advance.
>    Thanks for your cooperation,
>    Chuck
> 
>    <<New gTLD Recommendation 6
>    Community Discussion Group
>    Terms of Reference v3.docx>>