Re: [gtld-council] Regarding consensus

[Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Chuck,

Thanks for the response.  I remember spending about 5 minutes on the 
NCUC proposal at the LA meeting and that is all.   And I was trying to 
participate remotely at that meeting and it was almost impossible to 
hear anyone and have a real discussion due to technical difficulties 
with the teleconference.   So my 3rd point is to ask for a meaningful 
discussion on the NCUC proposal.
Thank you,
Robin



Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Robin,
>
> I would disagree with you on your third point because as a participant
> in the New gTLD Committee I recall us spending lots of time considering
> the issues and recommendations the NCUC put forward. Ultimately, it will
> be up to the Council to decide whether rough consensus was reached.  But
> rough consensus does not mean that everyone got everything they wanted;
> I know for a fact that that is not the case for the RyC.  But I do
> believe we are moving toward a set of recommendations that most of us
> can support and that is the goal.  Is there still some work to do?  Yes.
>
> Chuck Gomes
>
> "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
> unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
> you have received this message in error, please notify sender
> immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
>
>  
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
> > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 5:44 AM
> > To: Bruce Tonkin; gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Regarding consensus
> >
> > I have not seen the majority consensus that supports this 
> > controversial 
> > draft proposal on new gtlds.   I question this point. 
> >
> > I think we need to have some discussion as to whether the 
> > existing draft policy for new gtlds does, in fact, reflect 
> > the view of the majority of 
> > the gtld-council.   I have had conversations with other 
> > council members 
> > who also question the direction that this policy takes.
> > It seems to me that we are rushing to conclude this policy 
> > recommendation, perhaps for administrative reasons; but it is 
> > no where near a coherent policy that reflects the reality of 
> > existing international law, or the reality that an ICANN 
> > process could, as a practical matter, decide between 
> > competing public policy goals or differing views of morality.
> > So I'd like to propose three things:
> >
> > 1. Discuss whether the existing draft policy actually 
> > reflects the consensus view of the committee.
> > 2.  Accept input from neutral outside experts regarding how 
> > this draft policy tracks existing international legal 
> > standards for trademark rights and free expression rights.
> > 3.  In February, NCUC made a proposal to amend the draft 
> > policy recommendation, and the draft has yet to deal with the 
> > NCUC proposal in any way.  
> >  http://www.ipjustice.org/ICANN/drafts/022207.html
> > So I respectfully request that the policy development process 
> > deal with, or at least explain, why these proposals are not 
> > being considered.
> > Thank you,
> > Robin
> >
> >    
> >
> > > I think it comes down to whether the point is seen as a "friendly 
> > > amendment" - ie in someway enhances the current recommendation, or 
> > > whether the point is essentially an argument against the 
> > >      
> > recommendation
> >    
> >
> > > as a whole, or is a completely new recommendation.   The 
> > >      
> > recommendations
> >    
> >
> > > as they are drafted are intended to reflect the staff's 
> > >      
> > understanding 
> >    
> >
> > > of the majority.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >      
>