ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Preamble

  • To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Preamble
  • From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:12:20 +0100

Thanks Avri,

Please se my comments below.


Le 10 févr. 2010 à 23:13, Avri Doria a écrit :

> On 10 Feb 2010, at 19:57, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
>> Thanks Avri,
>> 2 questions:
>> - Why do you think not making the Feb 18 meeting time would push the charter 
>> back 3 weeks? We should be able to finish the charter on or around the 18th 
>> and therefore submit to the Council, maybe for discussion on list. As there 
>> is a 16-week time limit on this PDP, I'm sure Council would like to start 
>> looking at the charter asap. Maybe even discuss online approval...
> my assumption is that the approval of the charter will wait until Nairobi.  
> If I am wrong and it is approved sooner, great.   i thought it could be done 
> today and look how wrong I was about that. it will take 4 weeks for the 
> charter, though that may extend to six.

(Stéphane) I do not see why the charter could not be sent to Council mid next 
week. We have set ourselves a deadline of next Monday for discussions and the 
next day for a completed charter to be put to the group for approval. If we 
assume that one week would then be enough for DT members to go back to their 
respective groups and seek approval, we could aim to be done by Tuesday 23rd. I 
will wait until next week to notify Chuck of this proposed agenda, but if it 
looks like we can keep to it then I will inform him of this and see whether he 
wants to submit the charter to the Council on list asap.

>> - The Issues Report implied that we face restrictions if we attempt to set 
>> policy for existing gTLDs. If would like to get clear indications from Staff 
>> on this. As a reminder, the motion states that the PDP "shall evaluate which 
>> policy recommendations, if any, should be developed on the topic of vertical 
>> integration between registrars and registries affecting both new gTLDs and 
>> existing gTLDs, as may be possible under existing contracts and as allowed 
>> under the ICANN Bylaws". We should therefore not proceed under the given 
>> assumption that policies should be developed for existing gTLDs. The wording 
>> is "if any". However, should this be the case, I would like to have some 
>> instructions from Staff on whether we are able to set policy for existing 
>> gTLDs through this process or not.
> As I said, i do not believe this PDP can make consensus policy foe existing 
> gTLDs.  I would think that we would need a very specific motion to do that. 
> I do believe this PDP can investigate and make recommendations on whether any 
> current practice is not harmonious with the policy/guidelines defined in 
> objective 1.  i believe that once we see what those issue are, we can 
> determine whether they can be fixed via consensus policy or by asking the 
> registrar and Registries to pretty please change their practice to match the 
> policy/guidelines.
> I think it is only reasonable that when we define policy and guidelines in a 
> space where the staff says there is not policy, though I believe there is  
> defacto policy, we need to check current practice against that new policy, 
> and if there is a discrepancy look at whether and how we can fix it.  I also 
> beleive tat is what is mandated in the PDP the council approved.
> BTW, I do not believe staff can answer the question of whether recommendation 
> A based on the criteria developed in objective 1 regarding gTLD XYZ  is in 
> scope for a consensus policy until such time as we have resolved the criteria 
> in objective  1 and know what recommendation A and gTLD XYZ are.
> but I repeat while we may be able to create policy that would be applied to 
> new gTLDS, with the board's blessing, i do not believe we can make consensus 
> policy on current gTLDS, only recommend future actions.  and we cannot know 
> whether the recommendation of objective 3 warrant such a recommended future 
> action until we have completed objectives 1 & 3.

(Stéphane) Recommending future actions seems like a sensible way to move 
forward and is also something that can be included into the charter by this DT. 
It will then be up to the WG to determine how to implement the guidelines set 
in the charter.

>> The GNSO is overworked enough as it is. I don't think we want to see it 
>> applying itself on things that aren't useful.
> I think this is useful.  and I  believe that it was voted in as a PDP (though 
> the future consensus policy actions, if any, weren't).
> the GNSO may be busy, but I for one do believe this is an essential task.

(Stéphane) Slightly off-topic and a personal comment, but this PDP was approved 
in a vote by less than half the Council. The majority of the Council voted 
against and the need for prioritization was stated as one of the reasons for 
that. So I don't think it's a fair representation to argue that because the PDP 
was approved in a vote, it was deemed a priority by the Council as a whole. 
People will always argue that their own priorities are the most important, and 
other's priorities aren't. This is why the GNSO is in the situation it is 
today, with volunteers barely able to keep up and support Staff now telling us 
that they cannot deal with the workload either. And it is precisely to avoid 
prioritization-by-personal-preference that a team is currently working on a 
model to prioritize in a neutral way the Council's work.

> a.
>> Stéphane
>> Le 9 févr. 2010 à 23:57, Avri Doria a écrit :
>>> Hi,
>>> I wanted to make a few follow-up comments to those I made about consensus 
>>> policy and refer them to the preamble.
>>>> Preamble:  The working group on vertical integration shall evaluate policy 
>>>> recommendations for [new gTLDs only] [new gTLDs and existing gTLDs.  As 
>>>> explained in the Issues Report, the working group may be restricted in its 
>>>> ability to create Consensus Policies under existing registry agreements.] 
>>>> [The working group expects to define the range of restrictions on vertical 
>>>> separation that are currently in effect, to serve as a baseline to 
>>>> evaluate future proposals.]
>>> I think that the policy/guidelines this group recommends should be 
>>> applicable across gTLD registries, old and new.  
>>> Once approved, I believe they should apply to the new GTLDs in this first 
>>> round.  The policy/guidelines do not necessarily have to be complete for 
>>> the next DAG, but they do need to be completed, community reviewed and 
>>> board voted on before the final guidebook.  While I think we should be done 
>>> before DAGv4 (does anyone know the real schedule on that), if we aren't 
>>> then the DAGv4 should leave a place holder on this topic.
>>> On the question of their applicability to existing gTLDS, I think the issue 
>>> is more complex.  I do _not_ see this PDP as being able to produce 
>>> consensus policy on that - I think in the case of  consensus policy that 
>>> would change the condition in an existing arrangement,m the PDP question 
>>> would have to be quite specific.  What I think this PDP can do, and should 
>>> do, in relation to the existing arrangements is measure then against the 
>>> policy/guideline produced in this PDP and recommend whether further work on 
>>> consensus policies should be considered by the GNSO and GNSO Council.  In 
>>> doing this the WG should produce a list a very specific areas/questions, if 
>>> any are found, in which a consensus policy PDP would be recommended.
>>> In deference to 
>>>> {Objective 4:  To perform the PDP activities in a manner that does not 
>>>> delay the launch of the New GTLD Program. }
>>> We may want to set two deliverables, 
>>> - one the Policy/guideline on all gTLDS and the analysis of the options on 
>>> VI included in DAGv3.   (Obj 1,2)
>>> - and the other the recommendation for consensus policy action, if any, for 
>>> existing gTLDs. (Obj 3)
>>> The part of me that wants to be optimistic about our ability to get this 
>>> all done in 6 weeks wants to argue against this approach.  But some aspects 
>>> of reality dawned on me today when it became obvious we could not have a 
>>> charter in time for the meeting on 18 Feb.  The extra 3 weeks spent on the 
>>> charter means we probably could not deliver objective 3 in 16 weeks - if 
>>> ever we could have (with  deference to MM having called it impossible from 
>>> day 1).  But in deference to Objective 4, delivering on Objectives 1&2 by 
>>> May 14 might be a start. With Obj 3 a month later.
>>> a.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy