RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group
The GAC advises the Board, and I believe it is presumptive of the GNSO Council to not wait for the Board reply. I also would prefer to instead encourage the Board to just say NO and allow no further delays. The GNSO has established a policy and we should be working towards its implementation not against it. Your arguments below open the door for every SG with a concern to create further delay. I am also not too sure about this so-called "community working group" concept and what it means long term in regards to policy development (or implementation details if you like that term better). Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Fri, August 20, 2010 8:54 am To: "Adrian Kinderis" <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>
I would like to understand your position better Adrian and also explain mine.
Do you not think that the GNSO should try to work together with the GAC on their concerns regarding the implementation of new gTLD Recommendation 6?
The GAC has an important advisory role to the ICANN community regarding issues of public policy and it seems to me that this issue involves public policy, albeit public policy that may vary from government to government. The ICANN Bylaws require the Board to not only listen to GAC advice on public policy matters but also respond to it and in recent years they have shown that they have tried to do that. So it seems reasonable in my opinion that at some point the Board will respond to the GAC's request to form a community working group. They could reject the request or they could honor it and ask community members to participate; if the latter happens, the GNSO would be asked to participate.
My concern as Council Chair is that this is occurring extremely late in the game and I have communicated that to Heather. But the reality is that the GAC has made a request. I could have waited until the Board responds, but if recent history is any indication, that could take weeks or even months. Then if they decide to form a community WG, the chances of further delays in the introduction of new gTLDs could be further delayed, a possibility that I think the GNSO should try to minimize. Therefore, I decided that I would try to take steps to respond to the GAC request in cooperation with the ALAC who also had concerns on this topic and see if we could get the process moving as quickly as possible to hopefully avoid further delays or at least minimize them.
You did not miss anything. There was not a vote by the Council saying we would assist the GAC in doing this. The only thing that happened in the Council happened in our Wrap-Up meeting in Brussels when Bill Drake raised the issue and requested that interested GNSO participants should participate in the discussions that were going on in the GAC and ALAC. In that meeting several people volunteered and after that meeting others from the GNSO volunteered to participate as well. There was no opposition expressed at that time or since then until your message was received.
Do you oppose members of the GNSO community participating in this group?
I believe it was made clear in our Wrap-Up meeting that any volunteers would be participating in their individual capacity. Of course, to the extent that their SGs or Constituencies, want them to represent their groups' views, nothing would prevent them from doing that. But the intent has never been that anyone would be representing the GNSO or Council as a whole.
If the Council does not want to work cooperatively with the GAC and the ALAC and other ICANN organizations on this topic, I suppose it could decide to do that, but I don't think there would be any basis for preventing individual GNSO members from participating or even SGs or Constituencies if they so desired. My question to you in that regard is this: what message would that send to the community as a whole and more particularly to the GAC and to governments in general?
Regarding process, the ideal way for this to come about would have first of all been for the GAC to raise their concerns much earlier in the process. Heather says that they did but someone I was not aware of it until fairly recently. The reality is that the concerns have been raised now. Should we ignore them because it is so late or should we make a best effort to cooperate and see what can be done in a timely manner?
I made the latter choice. If the timing was different, the ideal approach would have been for me to wait until the GNSO received a request from the Board and then present the request to the Council to decide how to respond, and only then start to work on a formal charter with the other groups involved if the Council so decided. If I took that approach in the current circumstances, we probably would have had to wait at least until after the Board retreat the end of September to receive a request from the Board and maybe until after the October Board meeting. Then we would have had to decide how to respond in our October or November meetings whether to participate. The we would have had to work with the other organizations to develop and ultimately approve the joint charter. So maybe we could have started the work group by the end of the year.
One more thought: I personally believe that it is important for the GNSO to work cooperatively with all ICANN organizations that are impacted by issues of common concern and I also believe that this situation provides an opportunity for us to try doing that with the GAC, one of the organizations with whom we have not had much success in doing that in the past. Whether we like it or not, ICANN processes are supposed to bottom-up and inclusive of all stakeholders. Unfortunately, bottom-up, inclusive processes are slow. At the same time, where possible, I would like to speed them up if we can and that is what I tried to do in this case because I sincerely believe that we have a responsibility to try and bring closure to the new gTLD process in an effective manner but also in a timely manner.
Chuck
From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com .au] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:48 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO Subject: RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group
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.ica nn.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>>
Tim, In saying "Your arguments below open the door for every SG with a concern to create further delay." do you mean GNSO SG? If so, I do not see how that is the case any more so than other implementation issues that have been raised such as regarding rights protection (recommendation 3). Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:29 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: adrian@ausregistry.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group
The GAC advises the Board, and I believe it is presumptive of the GNSO Council to not wait for the Board reply. I also would prefer to instead encourage the Board to just say NO and allow no further delays. The GNSO has established a policy and we should be working towards its implementation not against it. Your arguments below open the door for every SG with a concern to create further delay.
I am also not too sure about this so-called "community working group" concept and what it means long term in regards to policy development (or implementation details if you like that term better).
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Fri, August 20, 2010 8:54 am To: "Adrian Kinderis" <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>
I would like to understand your position better Adrian and also explain mine.
Do you not think that the GNSO should try to work together with the GAC on their concerns regarding the implementation of new gTLD Recommendation 6?
The GAC has an important advisory role to the ICANN community regarding issues of public policy and it seems to me that this issue involves public policy, albeit public policy that may vary from government to government. The ICANN Bylaws require the Board to not only listen to GAC advice on public policy matters but also respond to it and in recent years they have shown that they have tried to do that. So it seems reasonable in my opinion that at some point the Board will respond to the GAC's request to form a community working group. They could reject the request or they could honor it and ask community members to participate; if the latter happens, the GNSO would be asked to participate.
My concern as Council Chair is that this is occurring extremely late in the game and I have communicated that to Heather. But the reality is that the GAC has made a request. I could have waited until the Board responds, but if recent history is any indication, that could take weeks or even months. Then if they decide to form a community WG, the chances of further delays in the introduction of new gTLDs could be further delayed, a possibility that I think the GNSO should try to minimize. Therefore, I decided that I would try to take steps to respond to the GAC request in cooperation with the ALAC who also had concerns on this topic and see if we could get the process moving as quickly as possible to hopefully avoid further delays or at least minimize them.
You did not miss anything. There was not a vote by the Council saying we would assist the GAC in doing this. The only thing that happened in the Council happened in our Wrap-Up meeting in Brussels when Bill Drake raised the issue and requested that interested GNSO participants should participate in the discussions that were going on in the GAC and ALAC. In that meeting several people volunteered and after that meeting others from the GNSO volunteered to participate as well. There was no opposition expressed at that time or since then until your message was received.
Do you oppose members of the GNSO community participating in this group?
I believe it was made clear in our Wrap-Up meeting that any volunteers would be participating in their individual capacity. Of course, to the extent that their SGs or Constituencies, want them to represent their groups' views, nothing would prevent them from doing that. But the intent has never been that anyone would be representing the GNSO or Council as a whole.
If the Council does not want to work cooperatively with the GAC and the ALAC and other ICANN organizations on this topic, I suppose it could decide to do that, but I don't think there would be any basis for preventing individual GNSO members from participating or even SGs or Constituencies if they so desired. My question to you in that regard is this: what message would that send to the community as a whole and more particularly to the GAC and to governments in general?
Regarding process, the ideal way for this to come about would have first of all been for the GAC to raise their concerns much earlier in the process. Heather says that they did but someone I was not aware of it until fairly recently. The reality is that the concerns have been raised now. Should we ignore them because it is so late or should we make a best effort to cooperate and see what can be done in a timely manner?
I made the latter choice. If the timing was different, the ideal approach would have been for me to wait until the GNSO received a request from the Board and then present the request to the Council to decide how to respond, and only then start to work on a formal charter with the other groups involved if the Council so decided. If I took that approach in the current circumstances, we probably would have had to wait at least until after the Board retreat the end of September to receive a request from the Board and maybe until after the October Board meeting. Then we would have had to decide how to respond in our October or November meetings whether to participate. The we would have had to work with the other organizations to develop and ultimately approve the joint charter. So maybe we could have started the work group by the end of the year.
One more thought: I personally believe that it is important for the GNSO to work cooperatively with all ICANN organizations that are impacted by issues of common concern and I also believe that this situation provides an opportunity for us to try doing that with the GAC, one of the organizations with whom we have not had much success in doing that in the past. Whether we like it or not, ICANN processes are supposed to bottom-up and inclusive of all stakeholders. Unfortunately, bottom-up, inclusive processes are slow. At the same time, where possible, I would like to speed them up if we can and that is what I tried to do in this case because I sincerely believe that we have a responsibility to try and bring closure to the new gTLD process in an effective manner but also in a timely manner.
Chuck
From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com .au] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:48 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO Subject: RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group
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.ica nn.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>>
Hello All, Just following up on a few posts on this topic. (1) Board response to GAC letter - the Board next meets at its retreat in Norway on 24-25 September 2010 - I expect the GAC letter will be discussed there and potentially some guidance provided to ICANN staff - generally I have encouraged the Board to refer such matters to the GNSO for comment/feedback, rather than the Board trying to come up with its own solution - the next formal Board meeting is on 28 October 2010. It is possible tat this meeting that the board might direct staff to finalize a final draft of the DAG for public posting, and potential decision at the Board meeting in Cartagena on 10 Dec 2010 (2) Timing - it would be useful to get any GNSO input on the GAC letter prior to the retreat on 24/25 Sept- especially if there are some concrete suggestions that would avoid the issue being put into some sort of PDP process for resolution (3) Personal views - just some personal comments - I think it could be useful to use a term other than "morality & public order" which is a specific terms used in some international treaties, but is not defined. Potentially something like "illegal terms or terms that relate to illegal activities in a majority of countries" might be better language that better reflects the internet of recommendation 6. I don't find the GAC language of 'controversial" to be helpful as what is controversial is often related to a particular topic at a particular time, rather than something that is related to an illegal activity. e.g Nuclear energy might be controversial at times in many countries due to environmental concerns, but I see no reason why something like .nuclearenergy should not be allowed. Murder on the other hand is illegal in most places, and so .murder might be something that could be rejected UNLESS there is a very specific purpose that does not encourage illegal activity (e.g a website to report information on murders for police to investigate etc). - the GNSO spent sometime on this issue - and there is quite a bit of text in the final report that I think is not changed by the GAC advice and is still current. e.g. that there is an ability to raise a formal objection in this area, and that a panel of judges would take into account international treaties and international legal norms in this area in making a decision. - I think it is also important to note that recommendation 20 was intended for objections related to cultural or religious terms e.g " An application will be rejected if an expert panel determines that there is substantial opposition to it from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted." - I think here could be some value in the GNSO providing a response to the GAC letter to clarify the intend of the GNSO policy - prior to beginning some working group to suggest any changes. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Just spotted some typos - see corrections below:
- the next formal Board meeting is on 28 October 2010. It is possible tat this meeting that the board might direct staff to finalize a final
Should read 'at this meeting" Potentially something like "illegal terms or
terms that relate to illegal activities in a majority of countries" might be better language that better reflects the internet of recommendation 6.
should read - "intent of recommendation 6" Regards, Bruce
Thanks Bruce for a very informative email. I note that your last comment seems to suggest that it would have been better for the GNSO not to involve itself in a cross-community WG at this early stage, but rather provide a direct reaction to the GAC letter. I have to admit that at a personal level, I continue to be uncomfortable with the WG, which was started without being first discussed by the Council. I am not even sure that a formal call for volunteers to the group has gone out, yet discussion has already started on it. And the initial Terms of Reference document seemed to me to leave the door open to some revision of GNSO new gTLD implementation recommendation 6 and to not set a strict enough timeline for the WG to complete its work, which was enough of a worry for me that I suggested some changes be made to that document. I wonder if the Council should not simply consider doing exactly what you suggest and providing a response to the GAC letter in time for the Board's September retreat. Perhaps this is something we should discuss at our meeting this Thursday? Stéphane Le 23 août 2010 à 05:19, Bruce Tonkin a écrit :
Hello All,
Just following up on a few posts on this topic.
(1) Board response to GAC letter
- the Board next meets at its retreat in Norway on 24-25 September 2010
- I expect the GAC letter will be discussed there and potentially some guidance provided to ICANN staff
- generally I have encouraged the Board to refer such matters to the GNSO for comment/feedback, rather than the Board trying to come up with its own solution
- the next formal Board meeting is on 28 October 2010. It is possible tat this meeting that the board might direct staff to finalize a final draft of the DAG for public posting, and potential decision at the Board meeting in Cartagena on 10 Dec 2010
(2) Timing
- it would be useful to get any GNSO input on the GAC letter prior to the retreat on 24/25 Sept- especially if there are some concrete suggestions that would avoid the issue being put into some sort of PDP process for resolution
(3) Personal views
- just some personal comments
- I think it could be useful to use a term other than "morality & public order" which is a specific terms used in some international treaties, but is not defined. Potentially something like "illegal terms or terms that relate to illegal activities in a majority of countries" might be better language that better reflects the internet of recommendation 6. I don't find the GAC language of 'controversial" to be helpful as what is controversial is often related to a particular topic at a particular time, rather than something that is related to an illegal activity. e.g Nuclear energy might be controversial at times in many countries due to environmental concerns, but I see no reason why something like .nuclearenergy should not be allowed. Murder on the other hand is illegal in most places, and so .murder might be something that could be rejected UNLESS there is a very specific purpose that does not encourage illegal activity (e.g a website to report information on murders for police to investigate etc).
- the GNSO spent sometime on this issue - and there is quite a bit of text in the final report that I think is not changed by the GAC advice and is still current. e.g. that there is an ability to raise a formal objection in this area, and that a panel of judges would take into account international treaties and international legal norms in this area in making a decision.
- I think it is also important to note that recommendation 20 was intended for objections related to cultural or religious terms e.g " An application will be rejected if an expert panel determines that there is substantial opposition to it from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted."
- I think here could be some value in the GNSO providing a response to the GAC letter to clarify the intend of the GNSO policy - prior to beginning some working group to suggest any changes.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
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
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
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
Tim & all, Please see my responses below. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of tim@godaddy.com Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 7:55 AM To: Stéphane Van Gelder; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; Bruce Tonkin Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group
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. [Gomes, Chuck] Do others think this would be helpful? If so, are there any volunteers willing to do this?
Forming a community wide WG sounds like some sort of policy endeavor and will require a lot more time.
[Gomes, Chuck] The idea of the community-wide endeavor was the GAC's recommendation to the Board. [Gomes, Chuck] > I also believe it is less likely to
come to a conclusion that does not attempt to change the policy. [Gomes, Chuck] First, I have never thought that the purpose should be to attempt to change the policy. Significant time was spent developing the recommendation and it was ultimately approved by a super-majority, sent to the Board and approved by the Board. To change that would seem to me to require another PDP and I agree with you that would take a lot of time. Second, in my opinion, the value of a community group could be to develop broader understanding of the complexity of the issues especially on the part of GAC members; if the exchange between GNSO, GAC members, ALAC members and other community members was able to create an increased common understanding across groups and was unable to come up with any new recommendations, I think that would add value. It could be that a community group, would come to basically the same point that the GNSO did but this time with GAC involvement. Or maybe some improvements could be suggested to the implementation plan that would not change the intent of the recommendation 6. That was my hope in cooperating with Heather and Cheryl on this.
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
Bruce, My fear isn't the dialogue. Of course we should always keep the lines of communication open. However, on this occasion there is danger that we are reopening an issue that has been closed off for some time now (as you point out) and that I am not sure they are going to achieve anything by doing so. As I said previously I believe the effort will go down the path of VI - promise much but deliver little other than further, unnecessary delays. I am against dialogue on a closed issue. I am against a futile efforts on an already strained community. Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:53 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group 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
Adrian, I would argue that communication itself is an achievement. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:55 AM To: Bruce Tonkin; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group
Bruce,
My fear isn't the dialogue. Of course we should always keep the lines of communication open.
However, on this occasion there is danger that we are reopening an issue that has been closed off for some time now (as you point out) and that I am not sure they are going to achieve anything by doing so.
As I said previously I believe the effort will go down the path of VI - promise much but deliver little other than further, unnecessary delays.
I am against dialogue on a closed issue.
I am against a futile efforts on an already strained community.
Adrian Kinderis
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:53 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group
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
Sorry Chuck I am not sure what that means. If all we are getting out of this is the ability to say "we listened" then I think we are clutching at straws. Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:40 PM To: Adrian Kinderis; Bruce Tonkin; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group Adrian, I would argue that communication itself is an achievement. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:55 AM To: Bruce Tonkin; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group
Bruce,
My fear isn't the dialogue. Of course we should always keep the lines of communication open.
However, on this occasion there is danger that we are reopening an issue that has been closed off for some time now (as you point out) and that I am not sure they are going to achieve anything by doing so.
As I said previously I believe the effort will go down the path of VI - promise much but deliver little other than further, unnecessary delays.
I am against dialogue on a closed issue.
I am against a futile efforts on an already strained community.
Adrian Kinderis
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:53 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group
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
participants (6)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Bruce Tonkin -
Gomes, Chuck -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Tim Ruiz -
tim＠godaddy.com