Re: [gtld-council] FW: [council] Next steps with the new gTLD recommendations

["Sophia B" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>]

>  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.
Sophia

On 29/05/07, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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.
>
> a.
>
> 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
> > option.
> >
> > Tony Harris
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Tonkin"
> > <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 7:44 PM
> > Subject: [gtld-council] FW: [council] Next steps with the new gTLD
> > recommendations
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> >> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> 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
> >> recommendations.
> >>
> >> As others have pointed out, some of the recommendations require
> >> further
> >> work with respect to developing dispute resolution processes.
> >> There
> >> are also no doubt some recommendations with stronger support than
> >> others.    The intent is that the recommendations as currently
> >> drafted
> >> by staff are capable of supermajority support based on the
> >> discussions
> >> 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
> >> recommendations
> >> by super-majority vote - we are in danger of losing the consensus
> >> that
> >> 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
> >> concluded
> >> 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
> >> seek
> >> 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
> >> ensure
> >> 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
> >> first
> >> round, but also allows flexibility to update the recommendations
> >> based
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Bruce Tonkin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >