RE: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re: morality issues

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

Totally agree Konstantinos and I am expecting  that ICANN staff will do
just that.  There is some awkwardness in this situation because the
Bylaws do not cover CWGs but the fact that the ICAN N model is based on
bottom up processes is in our favor.  To the extent that the CWG
recommendations are consistent with the GNSO recommendations that came
out of the Bylaws directed PDP, I believe that response to the CWG
recommendations is in order.  And, of course, that is the purpose of
this DT, to correct in perceptions that the CWG recommendations went
against the GNSO policy recommendations.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jon Nevett
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 7:27 AM
To: Konstantinos Komaitis
Cc: soac-mapo
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re:
morality issues

 

 

On Nov 29, 2010, at 5:48 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:





I understand that the role of CWG is not to create policy, but surely
the conclusions of such working groups should be acknowledged and
deliberated by ICANN and its staff. 

 

 

Konstantinos:

 

I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment here and your concern that
folks would not want to serve on these groups if the output would be
ignored by ICANN.  In the case of our group, however, I think that ICANN
and its staff did exactly what you suggest.  ICANN published a 36-page
paper acknowledging our work and providing a response and rationale to
each of our recommendations (see
http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/explanatory-memo-morality-public-or
der-12nov10-en.pdf).  They provided a detailed response for the
recommendations that were accepted and for those that were not accepted
or questioned.  Just because ICANN doesn't follow certain input does not
mean that the input was ignored.  

 

I also agree with Bertrand that we should work on a model for future
groups like ours.  It would be shame not to.

 

Best,

 

Jon