[registrars] Draft registrar comments on GNSO Review recommendations

[Thomas Keller]

Bruce,

I support your analyses as a good first step to start the discussion.

More generally I would like to add that it should be clear to all of us that 
we must spend some time on how we as Registrars think the GNSO should look like 
in the future and especially what weight the constituencies should have
in it or even whether we think that the constituency model is still
adequate. Further some time would be well spend to considere what the
actual job description of the GNSO council should be.

I would like to propose that we devote a big chunk of our time at the
Lisbon meeting to this topic.

Best,

tom

Am 12.01.2007 schrieb 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



Gruss,

tom

(__)        
(OO)_____  
(oo)    /|\	A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w