Re: [gtld-council] Regarding consensus

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bruce,

I'm afraid the following is a bit too abstract to determine.

Ie now is not
> the best
> time to introduce a new point, but it is appropriate to
> suggest edits
> that are consistent with the discussions held within the new
> gTLD
> committee.

Scenario: A point is made in a committee session, heard, and
somewhat considered (a few seconds or dozens of sec.), then
quickly pushed aside because there was no other participant
supports it. 
i) Is that a point that has been "discussed" by the committee?
ii) or is that a "new point"?

Either way, what are the proponent's options if she believes
that the point is important (e.g., not just for the sake of her
constituency but for broader policy goals)? In case of positive
answer to either i) or ii) when and where is it appropriate to
take that up, if it is believed that the issue need
further/substantial consideration before recommendation? 

Also, I'm wondering if there are any useful steps to ensure that
the clarifications you provide, when deemed sufficient, make it
to the the implementation plan. You may set up a policy with
some intentions and have it later on implemented in a totally
different direction while conforming to the letter (without
changing a word, of course.) 

Those were just formal observations to your response to the
points made by Robin; I didn't intend to address their substance
here.

Thanks,

Mawaki


--- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> Hello All,
> 
> Having just seen Robin's post on the current draft of
> recommendations,
> it is worth considering the following.
> 
> The output of the GNSO process is intended to be a consensus
> position.
> This is essentially a position that no one individual,
> organisation or
> constituency would create if it was in their sole control.   
> However the consensus position should be a position that
> everyone is
> willing to live with.
> 
> Thus the position is essentially a compromise between many
> competing
> interests, and the objective is to at least make some
> progress.   ICANN
> has been asked to consider a process for introducing new gTLDs
> for most
> of its existence.
> 
> The consensus position is also not a "final" position.   To
> start with
> the Board will need to consider inputs other than just the
> GNSO in
> making a final decision, and it is expected that the policy
> will be
> revised based on experience in the first round.
> 
> There is also a need to more formally develop the various
> objection
> processes that should create more clarity on what constitutes
> opposition.   A key component of these processes are that
> opposition can
> be either on the basis of laws that are consistent
> internationally
> (rather than a law in just one country) - preferably supported
> by
> international treaty - or on the basis that an entity
> complaining has
> some official standing associated with the string (e.g a
> .police, .bank
> etc).   There is no requirement as far as I can tell that
> everyone in
> the world needs to agree to a new string.    The decision to
> accept an
> objection should be on the basis of an appropriate external
> panel that
> it is hoped has the necessary legal expertise to resolve, as
> well as
> balance rights such as freedom of speech with other legal
> rights.
> 
> So I would encourage people not just to criticise the current
> recommendations - but suggest alternative language that is
> consistent
> with the discussions we have had up-to-date.  Ie now is not
> the best
> time to introduce a new point, but it is appropriate to
> suggest edits
> that are consistent with the discussions held within the new
> gTLD
> committee.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>