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

[Stéphane Van Gelder]

Thanks Bruce for a very informative email.

I note that your last comment seems to suggest that it would have been better for the GNSO not to involve itself in a cross-community WG at this early stage, but rather provide a direct reaction to the GAC letter.

I have to admit that at a personal level, I continue to be uncomfortable with the WG, which was started without being first discussed by the Council. I am not even sure that a formal call for volunteers to the group has gone out, yet discussion has already started on it. And the initial Terms of Reference document seemed to me to leave the door open to some revision of GNSO new gTLD implementation recommendation 6 and to not set a strict enough timeline for the WG to complete its work, which was enough of a worry for me that I suggested some changes be made to that document.

I wonder if the Council should not simply consider doing exactly what you suggest and providing a response to the GAC letter in time for the Board's September retreat. Perhaps this is something we should discuss at our meeting this Thursday?

Stéphane

Le 23 août 2010 à 05:19, Bruce Tonkin a écrit :

> 
> Hello All,
> 
> 
> Just following up on a few posts on this topic.
> 
> (1) Board response to GAC letter 
> 
> - the Board next meets at its retreat in Norway on 24-25 September 2010
> 
> - I expect the GAC letter will be discussed there and potentially some
> guidance provided to ICANN staff
> 
> - generally I have encouraged the Board to refer such matters to the
> GNSO for comment/feedback, rather than the Board trying to come up with
> its own solution
> 
> - the next formal Board meeting is on 28 October 2010.  It is possible
> tat this meeting that the board might direct staff to finalize a final
> draft of the DAG for public posting, and potential decision at the Board
> meeting in Cartagena on 10 Dec 2010
> 
> 
> (2) Timing
> 
> - it would be useful to get any GNSO input on the GAC letter prior to
> the retreat on 24/25 Sept- especially if there are some concrete
> suggestions that would avoid the issue being put into some sort of PDP
> process for resolution
> 
> 
> 
> (3) Personal views
> 
> - just some personal comments
> 
> - I think it could be useful to use a term other than "morality & public
> order"  which is a specific terms used in some international treaties,
> but is not defined.   Potentially something like "illegal terms or terms
> that relate to illegal activities in a majority of countries" might be
> better language that better reflects the internet of recommendation 6.
> I don't find the GAC language of 'controversial" to be helpful as what
> is controversial is often related to a particular topic at a particular
> time, rather than something that is related to an illegal activity.  e.g
> Nuclear energy might be controversial at times in many countries due to
> environmental concerns, but I see no reason why something like
> .nuclearenergy should not be allowed.   Murder on the other hand is
> illegal in most places, and so .murder might be something that could be
> rejected UNLESS there is a very specific purpose that does not encourage
> illegal activity (e.g a website to report information on murders for
> police to investigate etc).
> 
> 
> - the GNSO spent sometime on this issue - and there is quite a bit of
> text in the final report that I think is not changed by the GAC advice
> and is still current.  e.g. that there is an ability to raise a formal
> objection in this area, and that a panel of judges would take into
> account international treaties and international legal norms in this
> area in making a decision.
> 
> - I think it is also important to note that recommendation 20 was
> intended for objections related to cultural or religious terms e.g " An
> application will be rejected if an expert panel
> determines that there is substantial opposition to it from a significant
> portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or
> implicitly targeted."
> 
> - I think here could be some value in the GNSO providing a response to
> the GAC letter to clarify the intend of the GNSO policy  - prior to
> beginning some working group to suggest any changes.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> 
> 
>