ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gtld-council]


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

Re: [gtld-council] Regarding consensus

  • To: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Regarding consensus
  • From: Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 12:44:21 +0200

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.







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