ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gtld-council]


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

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

  • To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gtld-council] FW: [council] Next steps with the new gTLD recommendations
  • From: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 13:42:45 -0700

Here's how I propose we move forward:

1. We should at least consider the input from outside experts to address the unresolved issue of how well our recommendations track international law.

2. Than have a discussion on our various views about the recommendation (move the 7 June discussion back a couple weeks). 3. We will have to consider and vote on each of the recommendations individually to determine which actually belong in our final report. I agree that we can have 3 categories: i. Very strong support - many parts of the proposal are not contentious and so we don't need to spend a lot of time on these. ii. Medium support - where a minority perspective on a particular recommendation is shared by several council members. iii. Weak support - where only half of the council supports a recommendation.

4. Then then council needs to vote on report as a whole. I don't believe we can delegate the responsibility of approving recommendations to a committee. The council must vote on the final report as a final recommendation on a package of recommendations.

Thanks,
Robin



Gomes, Chuck wrote:

In my opinion there have been some very helpful comments in response to
Bruce's message and I find that I am in agreement with most of the
points made, although I won't repeat them here.  In that regard, I would
like to suggest the following as a means to help us decide how to move
forward in a constructive and timely way.

First of all I think that it is helpful for us to consider the tables of
Implementation Principles, Proposed Recommendations and Implementation
Guidelines that Liz distributed in categories that will hopefully help
us narrow down our focus in the remaining work to be done.  I suggest
that the principles, recommendations and guidelines be grouped into the
following three categories: 1) those for which there appears to be broad
agreement; 2) those for which work has not yet been completed; and 3)
those for which many of us thought work was completed, but some members
are now questioning.

To make it easier to work with the principles, recommendations and
guidelines, I created and attached a MS Word document that organizes
them according to how I think they might be categorized.  Interestingly,
if my assessment is accurate, I think that we probably have broad
support for a large majority of the principles, recommendations and
guidelines.  I only identified four for category two and didn't identify
any for category three although I would expect others to put a few in
category three instead of category one.

In the attached document I suggest the following next steps as a way
forward:

1.      Identify which items that I have placed in category one that
should be moved to category three
2.      Complete the work for the items in category two
3.      Decide how to resolve any issues in category three.

Using this approach it would not seem necessary to do any backtracking
except possibly for items put in category three, nor would it seem
necessary to consider each item separately except for those in
categories two and three.  If this is deemed to be a workable plan for
wrapping up our work, then I would predict that it will be relatively
easy to take Council vote at the end to validate a 2/3 majority and to
include any minority positions if necessary.
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 Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 6:44 PM
To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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











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