RE: [gtld-council] Regarding consensus

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robin,

Regardless of whether specific reference was made to the NCUC proposal,
in my recollection the topics identified by the NCUC and even the
recommendations presented by the NCUC received a lot of focus.

With regard to the second recommendation by the NCUC (Remove ICANN as
arbiter of global public policy.  National govts would determine what is
permitted in the nation in question.), I actually think that the
recommendations that the RN-WG made with regard to both controversial
and geographic names match the NCUC recommendation quite well, although
I suspect they might not go as far as you like.  Also, on a more general
point, the New gTLD Committee has worked very hard to avoid making ICANN
"the arbiter of global public policy"; the whole concept of setting up
challenge processes that would be operated by independent third parties
is based on this goal.  We still have more work to do in that regard but
I personally think we are headed in a sound direction. Obviously, the
details of those processes are critical and we need to work on them.

Regarding Applicant Criteria ii (Applicants should be able to
demonstrate their financial and operational capability), much time was
spent talking about this in different meetings. We talked a lot about
whether a full business plan should be required and I think reached a
compromise that is acceptable that focuses primarily on financial and
operational plans, rather than a full blown business plan.

Finally, an overriding goal of the RyC and I think the New gTLD
Committee as a whole has been to ensure that applications are evaluated
on an objective basis against published criteria as the NCUC recommends.
I have been one who has particularly pushed this goal because the RyC
feels very strongly about it, but I also recognize that it is rarely if
ever possible to avoid some level of subjectivity in complicated
processes.  I just want us to do everything possible to minimize
subjectivity as much as we can.


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: Robin Gross [mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:12 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Bruce Tonkin; gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Regarding consensus
> 
> 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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >
> >  
> >
> 
>