[council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group
Gomes, Chuck
cgomes at verisign.com
Fri Aug 20 14:52:43 UTC 2010
Tim,
In saying "Your arguments below open the door for every SG with a
concern to create further delay." do you mean GNSO SG? If so, I do not
see how that is the case any more so than other implementation issues
that have been raised such as regarding rights protection
(recommendation 3).
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim at godaddy.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:29 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: adrian at ausregistry.com.au; council at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working
> Group
>
> 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>>
More information about the council
mailing list