Good point, that could get us all into a lengthy debate. So perhaps at this point we just agree that AGv4 reflects current policy and anything not consistent with that would not be implemented or would be referred to Council for further consideration. I am encouraged by the Board's position on these remaining issues as it appears they are saying we are at the deadline for considering changes for the first round and work going forward will be focused on finalizing the AG and getting resources in place and ready to go. Tim

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RE:Board action on recommendation 6 From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Fri, October 08, 2010 7:56 am To: <tim@godaddy.com>, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>

Tim,

What do you mean by 'current policy'? Do you mean the current version of the guidebook (AGv4)?

Chuck

...

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of tim@godaddy.com Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 8:47 AM To: Bruce Tonkin; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] RE:Board action on recommendation 6

Thank you Bruce. I took the Board's instructions regarding rec6 to mean (or to also mean) those recs not inconsistent with the current policy.

Tim

-----Original Message----- From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 15:17:22 To: Council GNSO<council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] RE:Board action on recommendation 6

Hello All,

Reading the various discussions on the Council list, it appears that the GNSO believes that the Board dismissed or disagreed with the work from the working group on recommendation 6.

The Board resolution stated;

"The Board acknowledges receipt of the Rec6CWG report. This is a difficult issue, and the work of the community in developing these recommendations is appreciated. The Board has discussed this important issue for the past three years.

The Board agrees that ultimate responsibility for the new gTLD program rests with the Board. The Board, however, wishes to rely on the determinations of experts regarding these issues.

The Board will accept the Rec6 CWG recommendations that are not inconsistent with the existing process, as this can be achieved before the opening of the first gTLD application round, and will work to resolve any inconsistencies. Staff will consult with the Board for further guidance as required."

I interpreted that as saying that the Board broadly agreed with the direction of most of the recommendations from the working group. The outcomes of which will be seen in the next draft of the guidebook. e.g no longer using the term MAPO.

The only clear disagreement was using the Board of 21 people to directly try to interpret international law and act as some form of dispute panel on matters relating to recommendation 6. Most of the Board, including me, has no such legal training that would be needed to do that. The Board is not the supreme court. Instead we prefer to use a panel of experts (e.g judges) that are familiar with international law to reach a judgement. Ultimately the Board can over-rule that judgement as a last resort (and there are various mechanisms of appeal available for this

...

such as reconsideration requests, IRP panels etc).

Anyway I would be interested to hear how the GNSO has interpreted the Board resolution so that misunderstandings can be cleared up.

In terms of any special papers - from my recollection we only had the GNSO paper to read. So you already have the document that we relied on.

Regards, Bruce Tonkin