Marilyn et al, Maybe I'm wrong on this - I certainly was not on board at the time, but I had a recollection having seen that in the GNSO documents while sifting through the past documents. Hence my statement on that as an example. Will check and revert to you. Best regards Olof -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 5:12 PM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Olof Nordling'; ross@tucows.com Cc: 'Maria Farrell'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] RE: [gnso-dow123] Suggested standard text on policy recommendations This struck me as something I don't really think is right.... So, I need some clarification here.... I was the chair of the Transfers Task Force. I don't recall that we agreed that the consensus policy does not apply to sponsored TLDS. Sponsored TLDs are always subject to consensus policy. The sponsor has some additional responsibilities, but consensus policy applies to sponsored TLDS. Otherwise, we would have a chaotic situation where "one offs" were negotiated willy nilly without any community consensus and support. Not good for the Internet. Not good for ICANN. Not good for users. And not good for Council. More broadly, as it relates to ICANN overall, IF we are being put out of business as the "consensus policy body" and replaced by private contractual negotiations where there is no public notice, and things are done "privately as contractual negotiations", I'd like to have that discussed publicly within the Council, and within the community so there is clarity and either 1) that approach is supported 2) that approach is rejected. I think that was what the community asked for in Luxembourg, as it relates to the .net negotiations. The relationship to sponsored TLDS not being subject to consensus policies concerns me because it sounds like a "negotiation" -- and as someone who both supports the success of sponsored TLDS and supports ICANN's overall success, I don't support sponsored TLDS not being accountable to consensus policies. IF we need to tweak the consensus policy to "fit" sponsored TLDS, it needs to be a general tweak, not a one off TLD by TLD. Policy simply can't be enforced in that latter model. -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 7:04 AM To: Olof Nordling; ross@tucows.com; Marilyn Cade Cc: Maria Farrell Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Suggested standard text on policy recommendations Agreed.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dow123@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@icann.org] On Behalf Of Olof Nordling Sent: Wednesday, 31 August 2005 7:02 PM To: ross@tucows.com; 'Marilyn Cade' Cc: 'Maria Farrell'; 'Whois TF mailing list' Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Suggested standard text on policy recommendations
Ross et al, My reading of this is that the overarching distinction is between generic TLDs and country code TLDs - hence the split of DNSO once upon a time into GNSO and ccNSO. Generic TLDs can in turn be sorted in the following subsets; sponsored, unsponsored, restricted and unrestricted (which can be combined in a 2x2 matrix - well, in principle at least). So, I think it's right to keep it simple and refer to generic TLDs, unless we wish to carve out a subset from the application. That was done in the transfers policy, where it was explicitly stated that it should not apply to sponsored TLDs. Just my 2 Eurocents Regards Olof
-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dow123@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 9:34 PM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: 'Maria Farrell'; 'Whois TF mailing list' Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Suggested standard text on policy recommendations
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
We should probably pick this up w/in council. My personal preference is to keep it simple and only refer to generic top level domains.
On 30/08/2005 3:25 PM Marilyn Cade noted that;
I like it! And by relying on the bylaws we are in good space except for one thing. :-) The 'sponsored TLDS' are still in the g space. but not specified in the bylaws. We all know/and operate accordingly, that they are "generics" but with a special "sponsorship".
Should we say.. e.g. sTLDs and gTLDs?
_____
From: owner-gnso-dow123@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maria Farrell Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 3:18 PM To: 'Whois TF mailing list' Subject: [gnso-dow123] Suggested standard text on policy recommendations
Dear all,
On today's WHOIS task force call, it was agreed to develop some text that makes it clear that the recommendation on national laws refers only to the gTLD space. Also, task force members wanted this to be a standardised text that can be put in all task force reports to make it clear to all readers that the work of the GNSO is limited to the gTLD space.
Here is a suggestion I've drafted, drawing on the bylaws:
"Article X, Section 1 of the ICANN Bylaws (http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X ) states "the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), (which) shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. This preliminary task force report and the consensus policy recommendation therein refers only to the generic top level domain space. "
Comments and suggestions gratefully received.
If and when we have a final version of this standardised text, I'd suggest forwarding it on to the GNSO Council so that we can have a full agreement to start adding the text to all task force reports that come through the PDP.
All the best, Maria
- --
-rwr
Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross Skydasher: A great way to start your day My weblog: http://www.byte.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)
iD8DBQFDFLSP6sL06XjirooRAih1AJ4vTreVh8g21cT4GpUUf2X+/tuSkACfXnQh PKspilijLtG1P16G4ABiEvY= =LJU0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----