Clarification of Comments
I want to ensure that my remarks today concerning the gTLD registry agreements are very clear. My point is twofold; a) that the GNSO needs to properly consider the policy implications of these agreements. b) that there is a process by which we do so. I've come to understand that there is some level of concern, external to the GNSO, about the appropriateness of the GNSO considering these matters. My response to this concern is that if we are unable to consider these issues, we should reconsider whether or not there is a continued role for the GNSO. These agreements govern the operations, assignment and management of a specific gTLD. Not coincidentally, these are the same areas of concern that comprised the original mandate of the DNSO. This alone should be sufficient grounds for Council to proceed with the work contemplated. But, if further justification is necessary, a quick review of the concerns raised by the various constituencies and advisory committees over the past 60 days will demonstrate that these agreements carry many policy implications - implications which are clearly within the scope of concern for the GNSO. I continue to fully support the Council resolution "that the ICANN Board should postpone adoption of the proposed settlement while the Council fully investigates the policy issues raised by the proposed changes" without reservation or qualification. That said, the work undertaken as a result of this resolution should be carried out according to the processes we've agreed to. In our policy development process, the next step is to request the creation of an issues report from the Staff Manager. The Staff Manager must create an issues report for us within 15 days. I don't believe it is appropriate for us to presume that this obligation will not be met. In the event that we are unable to execute the process per the requirements of the bylaws, we should consider what our alternatives are, and proceed in a way that least offends those bylaws. In other words, if the Staff Manager informs Council that we can't get what we need to do our when in a time frame thats meaningful, then we should look at other options - retaining outside help, etc. Thank you again for your attention to this important issue. If there is anything that I can further clarify, please let me know. -ross
I agree with Ross on both points. It was important that the council take the initiative and follow-up on the resolution by requesting an issues report. Upon further reflection, it was also presumptuous to presume that the Staff Manager would not be able to meet the 15 day deadline. If time conflicts are an issue then, as Ross noted, the Staff Manager will advise us of the conflict and we can then consider the alternatives including the possibility of retaining outside assistance on the issues report. Regards, Lucy
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Ross Rader Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 6:02 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Clarification of Comments
I want to ensure that my remarks today concerning the gTLD registry agreements are very clear. My point is twofold;
a) that the GNSO needs to properly consider the policy implications of these agreements.
b) that there is a process by which we do so.
I've come to understand that there is some level of concern, external to the GNSO, about the appropriateness of the GNSO considering these matters. My response to this concern is that if we are unable to consider these issues, we should reconsider whether or not there is a continued role for the GNSO.
These agreements govern the operations, assignment and management of a specific gTLD. Not coincidentally, these are the same areas of concern that comprised the original mandate of the DNSO. This alone should be sufficient grounds for Council to proceed with the work contemplated. But, if further justification is necessary, a quick review of the concerns raised by the various constituencies and advisory committees over the past 60 days will demonstrate that these agreements carry many policy implications - implications which are clearly within the scope of concern for the GNSO.
I continue to fully support the Council resolution "that the ICANN Board should postpone adoption of the proposed settlement while the Council fully investigates the policy issues raised by the proposed changes" without reservation or qualification.
That said, the work undertaken as a result of this resolution should be carried out according to the processes we've agreed to. In our policy development process, the next step is to request the creation of an issues report from the Staff Manager. The Staff Manager must create an issues report for us within 15 days. I don't believe it is appropriate for us to presume that this obligation will not be met. In the event that we are unable to execute the process per the requirements of the bylaws, we should consider what our alternatives are, and proceed in a way that least offends those bylaws. In other words, if the Staff Manager informs Council that we can't get what we need to do our when in a time frame thats meaningful, then we should look at other options - retaining outside help, etc.
Thank you again for your attention to this important issue. If there is anything that I can further clarify, please let me know.
-ross
hi, I agree with this completely. we should not presume that the staff manager cannot do the report. If they can't or if the report is deficient in some way, which is _not_ my expectation, then we would need to figure out what to do next, but I see no reason not to follow the normal process at this point. a. On 17 jan 2006, at 19.01, Ross Rader wrote:
That said, the work undertaken as a result of this resolution should be carried out according to the processes we've agreed to. In our policy development process, the next step is to request the creation of an issues report from the Staff Manager. The Staff Manager must create an issues report for us within 15 days. I don't believe it is appropriate for us to presume that this obligation will not be met. In the event that we are unable to execute the process per the requirements of the bylaws, we should consider what our alternatives are, and proceed in a way that least offends those bylaws. In other words, if the Staff Manager informs Council that we can't get what we need to do our when in a time frame thats meaningful, then we should look at other options - retaining outside help, etc.
Greetings: I agree with all that is said above. Maybe the Council was a bit premature in its motion or a modification is further due if we cannot resolve it.
From what I heard in the meeting, the time frame vs. substantive issue were the bearer of this motion to initiate a separate process. If there is a conflict of interest we should be aware of, I would suggest the Staff should be in a position to inform us.
Thank you. Sophia On 17/01/06, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
hi,
I agree with this completely. we should not presume that the staff manager ecannot do the report. If they can't or if the report is deficient in some way, which is _not_ my expectation, then we would need to figure out what to do next, but I see no reason not to follow the normal process at this point.
a.
On 17 jan 2006, at 19.01, Ross Rader wrote:
That said, the work undertaken as a result of this resolution should be carried out according to the processes we've agreed to. In our policy development process, the next step is to request the creation of an issues report from the Staff Manager. The Staff Manager must create an issues report for us within 15 days. I don't believe it is appropriate for us to presume that this obligation will not be met. In the event that we are unable to execute the process per the requirements of the bylaws, we should consider what our alternatives are, and proceed in a way that least offends those bylaws. In other words, if the Staff Manager informs Council that we can't get what we need to do our when in a time frame thats meaningful, then we should look at other options - retaining outside help, etc.
-- Sophia Bekele Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598 Mob:925-818-0948 sophiabekele@gmail.com SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com
participants (4)
-
Avri Doria -
ICANNSoph -
Lucy.Nichols＠nokia.com -
Ross Rader