I also think Bruce makes some very good points. But I would propose that all we need is a drafting team to put together such a response to clarify the intent of the recommendation, and to perhaps include a suggestion to staff on a wording change that maintains the intent but does not create undefined terms. Forming a community wide WG sounds like some sort of policy endeavor and will require a lot more time. I also believe it is less likely to come to a conclusion that does not attempt to change the policy. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:09:52 To: Bruce Tonkin<Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group Thanks for that additional insight Bruce. It's very useful. Stéphane Le 23 août 2010 à 09:53, Bruce Tonkin a écrit :
Hello Stéphane,
I am not really commenting on the method that the GNSO chooses to reach a position on a topic (e.g whether you choose to convene a group with GNSO members, or a group with wider ICANN participation).
My main message - was I think that the GNSO needs to respond on a matter that relates to GNSO policy.
ie GAC -> ICANN Board -> GNSO
Given the letter came from the GAC - it would certainly make sense for there to be a dialogue of some form between the GNSO and the GAC. Of course it is a pity this did not occur around 2006 when there were numerous briefings to the GAC on the proposed policy. A letter such as this should have been sent to the GNSO Council years before.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin