Re: [gtld-council] FW: [council] Next steps with the new gTLD recommendations
- To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gtld-council] FW: [council] Next steps with the new gTLD recommendations
- From: "Sophia B" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 08:21:30 -0700
Assuming that there is strong support for a recommendation as
> > written, we should be able to confirm that support with a list of
> > every councillor that openly supports the position relatively
> > quickly. In places where we do not have strong support for a
> > recommendation we should be able to indentify that quickly as well
> > and add the issue to the 'work to be done' list. I think doing this
> > work is an integral part of:
> > > wherein the Council will work towards achieving a Supermajority
> > > Vote to present to the Board.
> > and something we
> must do before we ask others to consider the report.
Agree with both...maybe, the above is where we can start the next step.
On 29/05/07, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
For the record i too agree that we cannot reset the clock. I also
must admit i have not heard anyone suggest that we reset the clock.
I think that is an unlikely hypothetical.
On 29 maj 2007, at 10.16, Anthony Harris wrote:
> I agree with Bruce entirely. A long time has been
> spent on this and resetting the clock is not an
> Tony Harris
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Tonkin"
> To: <gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 7:44 PM
> Subject: [gtld-council] FW: [council] Next steps with the new gTLD
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
>> On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
>> Sent: Tuesday, 29 May 2007 7:59 AM
>> To: Council GNSO
>> Subject: [council] Next steps with the new gTLD recommendations
>> Hello All,
>> With respect to the Council meeting on 7 June, I would like to get a
>> sense of how the Council wants to handle the current new gTLD
>> As others have pointed out, some of the recommendations require
>> work with respect to developing dispute resolution processes.
>> are also no doubt some recommendations with stronger support than
>> others. The intent is that the recommendations as currently
>> by staff are capable of supermajority support based on the
>> during the new gTLD committee meetings.
>> My current concern is that if we don't move the work we have done to
>> some kind of vote - which may accept all or some of the
>> by super-majority vote - we are in danger of losing the consensus
>> has been built up through many meetings. I also feel we are at the
>> point of diminishing returns. No significant new issues were
>> raised in
>> Lisbon that had not already been discussed in the new gTLD committee.
>> I feel that there is a community expectation that the GNSO Council
>> either conclude its work, or at least identify which bits are
>> to allow the Board to consider the recommendations and to allow
>> staff to
>> begin to do further work. We don't want the GNSO to be seen as the
>> barrier to new TLDs (either IDN or non-IDN based).
>> If we can't make some sort of statement about the level of
>> consensus of
>> the recommendations, it becomes hard to justify ICANN staff spending
>> additional time working on the implementation details.
>> I expect that as staff begin working on the implementation details of
>> dispute processes and other implementation details, that they may
>> further clarification of the recommendation, or even recommend the
>> removal of a recommendation if not external dispute process can be
>> developed. I would also expect that we will get more input on the
>> dispute processes once detailed drafts are published - this will
>> that issues such as freedom of speech are properly addressed in the
>> dispute processes.
>> No doubt as new people become involved in ICANN and the GNSO - there
>> will be desire to reset the clock, and start the policy development
>> again. I feel however that we will never get a perfect answer,
>> and that
>> it is better to proceed in such a way that minimises risk in the
>> round, but also allows flexibility to update the recommendations
>> on experience of the first round.
>> It would be useful to hear the views of Council members on this topic
>> via the Council mailing list prior to the Council meeting next week.
>> Bruce Tonkin