[registrars] Draft registrar comments on GNSO Review recommendations

[Bruce Tonkin]

Hello All,

In Sao Paulo I agreed to create a document as a starting point for
consideration by the registrars constituency to respond to the review of
the GNSO by the London School of Economics.

See:  http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-15sep06.htm

I have created a spreadsheet where I have listed each recommendation,
numbered as per the GNSO review report.  In some cases I have stripped
out some of the words of long recommendations, but included enough to
convey the concept.  Look for "...".

For each recommendation I have indicated a level of support.

"Strong" - means that ICANN could proceed without much further
discussion.

"Medium" - means that the recommendation needs further work and
discussion before implementation.

"Weak" - means that more thinking should really be done before bothering
to take much further.  Usually this is where another recommendation
needs to be considered in more detail first.


For each recommendation I have also provided a relative priority.

"High" - should be fairly straightforward and should be done in the
first half of 2007.

"Medium" - may need some further work or is not essential and could be
done in second half of 2007

"low" - means either much more work needs to be done, or could wait
until after 2007

The spreadsheet format allows sorting and searching based on these
measures.   Ie you can identify which recommendations are high priority
or which have strong support.

I have added very short comments on some of the recommendations.   Note
that the key recommendation that needs more extensive consultation is
recommendation 19 (highlighted in red).   Rather than trying to form a
detailed registrars position on this - I think we should mainly be
seeking more discussion within some form of ICANN working group.
Recommendation 21 relating to weighted voting and level of consensus
really needs to wait or be part of the discussion of recommendation 19.

Comments or suggestions for changes are welcome - particularly from
those that have been involved in policy development processes.

I hope you find the approach to be useful.  Note the registry
constituency has submitted extensive comments under each recommendation.

See: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements/msg00001.html .


Regards,
Bruce Tonkin







-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: LSE-Review-comments.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 28160 bytes
Desc: LSE-Review-comments.xls
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registrars/attachments/20070112/01a19b94/LSE-Review-comments.xls>