I reject the notion of a WG at all. IMO it is unnecessary and will not provide any useful, tactile benefits.

Did I miss something here Chuck. Was there a vote by the Council saying we would assist the GAC in doing this?

Is there a mechanism by which we could stop GNSO participation and support?

Adrian Kinderis

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 12:32 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group
Importance: High

Hopefully all of you are aware that the GAC requested a community working group to discuss the implementation of the GNSO New gTLD Recommendation 6.  To accommodate that request, the list that the GNSO established in follow-up to Bill Drake’s request in our Brussels Wrap-Up session to participate in the discussions on this topic going on within the GAC an ALAC will be used for the community working group discussions.

Considering how late this is happening relative to the new gTLD process, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, chair of the ALAC, and Heather Dryden, Chair of the GAC, and I have been discussing how to go about accommodating the GAC request in a timely manner.  To expedite discussions, we decided to prepare an initial draft Terms of Reference (ToR) for discussion by those who have volunteered to participate in the group.  The hope is to very quickly finalize the ToR so that discussion of the issues may begin and thereby have a chance of developing recommendations for improving the implementation plan for Recommendation 6 in the Draft Application Guidebook, version 4.

As you can see in the draft ToR, this is not a PDP.  The GNSO Council already approved Recommendation 6 by a super-majority vote.  There is no intent to undo the intent of that recommendation; to do that would require a PDP because it would be materially changing an already approved policy recommendation.  Rather, the intent is to explore whether the implementation process in version 4 of the Guidebook could be improved in a way that addresses any of the GAC and ALAC concerns.

As all of you know, there is no established process for community working groups.  In drafting the initial ToR for discussion, we tried to accommodate the needs of all three organizations especially in terms of how they operate, which are different in certain respects.  Please note that the group is open to all community participants from all SOs and ACs and for that matter any who are not SO or AC participants.

I believe that this could be the first significant effort of the GNSO and GAC working together in a WG and I am hopeful that it will provide some lessons for how we can to that better on other issues in the future, just like the GNSO Council discussed with the GAC in Brussels.  The GAC has an important advisory role in ICANN policy processes as they relate to public policy issues and we all know that the Board will listen intently to the GAC advice on the implementation of Recommendation 6.  Therefore, it seemed wise to try to do that sooner rather than later to minimize any further delays.

I will add this topic to the agenda for 26 August but would really appreciate it if we can discuss it on the list in advance.

Thanks for your cooperation,

Chuck

<<New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Discussion Group Terms of Reference v3.docx>>