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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robin,

Please see my comments below.

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: Robin Gross [mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 4:43 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Bruce Tonkin
> Subject: Re: [gtld-council] FW: [council] Next steps with the 
> new gTLD recommendations
> 
> 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.

What international law (or laws) are you concerned with?  Or maybe I
should ask what recommendations you think need to be validated relative
to international law?  It seems to me that regardless of what we
recommend and even what is ultimately implemented, the parties involved
will always be subject to local laws, so why would we need to have
experts tell us that?

> 
> 2.  Than have a discussion on our various views about the 
> recommendation (move the 7 June discussion back a couple weeks).

I am not convinced a delay is needed.  We need to work toward refining
the recommendations that are related to complaint and dispute resolution
processes.  Why delay that work?  If we need to consult experts
regarding that work, we could still do so.  Besides, if there is any
need to consult experts further, we should have very specific questions
to submit to applicable experts; do you have some?
 
> 
> 3. We will have to consider and vote on each of the recommendations 
> individually to determine which actually belong in our final 
> report.

Why?  It is much simpler and would minimize duplication of effort to
simply identify any items where some people think there is not broad
agreement; then we can focus our attention on those only.

>   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.

I would suggest we don't need to spend any time on these other than as
part of the whole package.

>    ii. Medium support - where a minority perspective on a 
> particular recommendation is shared by several council members.

If this means rehashing arguments that we have already had, then I have
serious reservations of the value. If in fact we can determine that
there is a minority perspective, then a minority statement (or minority
statements) should be included.

>    iii. Weak support - where only half of the council 
> supports a recommendation.

If we have done our work effectively, these should be weeded out before
we approve the report for the Board.

> 
> 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.

On this I agree because of PDP requirements, but it should be a fairly
simple procedural manner at the end.  It should not be another debate.
The debating should be done and we should have developed positions that
most Council members can support.

> 
> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >  
> >
> 
>