Re: [gtld-council] Regarding consensus

[Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>]

Robin

Your posting has been considered by a wide range of interested people  
and certainly by all the Committee members have been working on the  
introduction of new TLDs since December 2005.  Your views are also  
read by a variety of others who are interested stakeholders and, of  
course, by me and other ICANN staff.  Given that timing, we are  
hardly rushing to reach conclusions which have been under development  
over many many months.
You have raised again the necessity of having external advice on many  
areas.  This has been done both within the work of the Committee and  
internally in a number of different areas.  The input of experts will  
continue throughout the implementation planning.
ICANN is responsible for setting up system by which applicants can  
submit applications for new TLDs.  We must put in place measures of  
how those applications are assessed -- using objective and relevant  
criteria that meet best practice guidelines and which map to ICANN's  
Mission and Core Values.  You will note on the documentation I sent  
around asking for constituency impact statements that each of the  
principles, proposed recommendations and implementation guidelines  
have direct reference to the relevant mission and core value.  You  
are also aware that each constituency representative should have been  
talking to and working with their respective constituencies on each  
of these areas.  In addition, ICANN has paid for constituency members  
to attend a series of consultations to  ensure that all views are  
aired as openly and fairly as possible.
As I said in my previous post, you and the NCUC need to work with  
other constituencies to demonstrate why your proposals are majority  
supported -- if they are they will be included in the consensus  
policy position.  If they are not, they will be included as a  
minority report.
As Chuck responded to you as well as Bruce and I, these proposals are  
still in draft form and will remain so until after the San Juan  
meeting.  I look forward to speaking with you on 7 June and, of  
course, if you need any further assistance don't hesitate to ask.
Kind regards.

Liz
.....................................................

Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob




On 25 May 2007, at 11:44, Robin Gross wrote:

> 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.