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

tim at godaddy.com tim at godaddy.com
Mon Aug 23 11:55:17 UTC 2010


I also think Bruce makes some very good points. But I would propose that all we need is a drafting team to put together such a response to clarify the intent of the recommendation, and to perhaps include a suggestion to staff on a wording change that maintains the intent but does not create undefined terms.

Forming a community wide WG sounds like some sort of policy endeavor and will require a lot more time. I also believe it is less likely to come to a conclusion that does not attempt to change the policy.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
Sender: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:09:52 
To: Bruce Tonkin<Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
Cc: <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group


Thanks for that additional insight Bruce. It's very useful.

Stéphane

Le 23 août 2010 à 09:53, Bruce Tonkin a écrit :

> 
> Hello Stéphane,
> 
> I am not really commenting on the method that the GNSO chooses to reach a position on a topic (e.g whether you choose to convene a group with GNSO members, or a group with wider ICANN participation).
> 
> My main message - was I think that the GNSO needs to respond on a matter that relates to GNSO policy.
> 
> ie GAC -> ICANN Board -> GNSO
> 
> Given the letter came from the GAC - it would certainly make sense for there to be a dialogue of some form between the GNSO and the GAC.   Of course it is a pity this did not occur around 2006 when there were numerous briefings to the GAC on the proposed policy.  A letter such as this should have been sent to the GNSO Council years before.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> 
> 






More information about the council mailing list