RE: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG...
The new gTLD issues are related to GNSO specific policy. I do not believe it was appropriate for a CWG to self form to deal with what it chose to call an implementation issue any more than it was for the Board to do the same thing with the IRT. At least with the latter the Board eventually sent it back to where it should have been dealt with in the first place, the GNSO. So I was pleased to see the Board response to the policy changes proposed by the MAPO CWG. If we continue down a path of allowing and even supporting such out of band efforts, then eventually such out of band CWGs will become the norm and used by SGs, ACs, etc. to get their pet issues on the table without going through the accepted processes. Setting policy in that manner is not provided for anywhere in ICANN's bylaws, and I think for good reason. As Allen points out, the GNSO policy development process allows for participation of all in the community in its WGs. The current CWG efforts have not been to deal with some etherial, non-policy related issues. They are being used to attempt to take a short cut around the established GNSO proceses. IMHO, both the ALAC and the GAC are no longer content with having an Advisory role within the community, and perhaps they never were, but that's where we are at. If that is going to change I would like it to be a frank, open, and direct discussion and not as a result of an unintended imprimatur by the GNSO. If we stick solely to what Bill has suggested in regards to this recent ALAC request, that may be fine in this instance, but I am concerned about the tone and implications of the entire message from them and would not want to imply that we agree with any other part of it. And as I said earlier, I think some consideration should be given to whether separate inquiries would be better. Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG... From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Wed, October 06, 2010 11:49 am To: <council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com>
I believe that the sentence that Tim is referring to is
"It is our belief that particularly where we were jointly operating as Chartering Organisations or in Cross Community mode this would be quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC do wish to do so the ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build better and more robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus built policy processes in ICANN."
I do not claim to speak for Cheryl (but I have copied here on this note), but I will give my views. We tend to use the same words but with many different meanings in ICANN. There is no doubt that the Bylaws give the GNSO Council full and sole control of the gTLD Policy Development Process. The PDP is a very specific process and its outcomes are subject to very special Board treatment. With the current working group model that still gives others (both affiliated with AC/SOa or not) the ability to participate.
But in my mind, the GNSO is not the only part of ICANN which has an interest in the more general gTLD issues and the two recent working group are examples. As indicated in the CCT report recently approved by the GNSO Council, cooperation with other ACs and SOs is desirable. I note that Cheryl did not capitalize Policy or Processes and I think clearly meant the terms in their most general sense.
Despite the general Board rejection of the products of the two recent cross-constituency WGs, I would like to think that we need to continue to use such models when and where it seems to be advantageous. The alternative to the direction indicated by the sentence is that the GNSO or the GNSO Council refuse to participate in activities with the other groups, or that the other groups not be allowed to undertake any gTLD-related discussions on their own unless "led" by the GNSO. I don't think that either would be a desirable way forward.
I do not see any of this diluting the role of the GNSO and GNSO Council. It may make things more complex at times, but if that is the price to pay for good outcomes, I think it may be a worthwhile trade-off.
Alan
At 06/10/2010 11:18 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote: Well Bill, if that was all it was about that might be true. But the second sentence of the first paragraph of the excerpt clearly indicates a bigger picture goal. So perhaps how we proceed all depends on how we do it and what it involves. Getting more info on the Board's decisions is one thing, extending it beyond that is another.
Tim
I share Tim's concerns. Stéphane Le 6 oct. 2010 à 21:27, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
The new gTLD issues are related to GNSO specific policy. I do not believe it was appropriate for a CWG to self form to deal with what it chose to call an implementation issue any more than it was for the Board to do the same thing with the IRT. At least with the latter the Board eventually sent it back to where it should have been dealt with in the first place, the GNSO. So I was pleased to see the Board response to the policy changes proposed by the MAPO CWG.
If we continue down a path of allowing and even supporting such out of band efforts, then eventually such out of band CWGs will become the norm and used by SGs, ACs, etc. to get their pet issues on the table without going through the accepted processes. Setting policy in that manner is not provided for anywhere in ICANN's bylaws, and I think for good reason.
As Allen points out, the GNSO policy development process allows for participation of all in the community in its WGs. The current CWG efforts have not been to deal with some etherial, non-policy related issues. They are being used to attempt to take a short cut around the established GNSO proceses. IMHO, both the ALAC and the GAC are no longer content with having an Advisory role within the community, and perhaps they never were, but that's where we are at. If that is going to change I would like it to be a frank, open, and direct discussion and not as a result of an unintended imprimatur by the GNSO.
If we stick solely to what Bill has suggested in regards to this recent ALAC request, that may be fine in this instance, but I am concerned about the tone and implications of the entire message from them and would not want to imply that we agree with any other part of it. And as I said earlier, I think some consideration should be given to whether separate inquiries would be better.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG... From: Alan Greenberg Date: Wed, October 06, 2010 11:49 am To: Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr
I believe that the sentence that Tim is referring to is
"It is our belief that particularly where we were jointly operating as Chartering Organisations or in Cross Community mode this would be quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC do wish to do so the ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build better and more robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus built policy processes in ICANN."
I do not claim to speak for Cheryl (but I have copied here on this note), but I will give my views. We tend to use the same words but with many different meanings in ICANN. There is no doubt that the Bylaws give the GNSO Council full and sole control of the gTLD Policy Development Process. The PDP is a very specific process and its outcomes are subject to very special Board treatment. With the current working group model that still gives others (both affiliated with AC/SOa or not) the ability to participate.
But in my mind, the GNSO is not the only part of ICANN which has an interest in the more general gTLD issues and the two recent working group are examples. As indicated in the CCT report recently approved by the GNSO Council, cooperation with other ACs and SOs is desirable. I note that Cheryl did not capitalize Policy or Processes and I think clearly meant the terms in their most general sense.
Despite the general Board rejection of the products of the two recent cross-constituency WGs, I would like to think that we need to continue to use such models when and where it seems to be advantageous. The alternative to the direction indicated by the sentence is that the GNSO or the GNSO Council refuse to participate in activities with the other groups, or that the other groups not be allowed to undertake any gTLD-related discussions on their own unless "led" by the GNSO. I don't think that either would be a desirable way forward.
I do not see any of this diluting the role of the GNSO and GNSO Council. It may make things more complex at times, but if that is the price to pay for good outcomes, I think it may be a worthwhile trade-off.
Alan
At 06/10/2010 11:18 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote: Well Bill, if that was all it was about that might be true. But the second sentence of the first paragraph of the excerpt clearly indicates a bigger picture goal. So perhaps how we proceed all depends on how we do it and what it involves. Getting more info on the Board's decisions is one thing, extending it beyond that is another.
Tim
Hi Tim Thanks for laying this out. I understand your general concern and doubt anyone here would want out of band CWGs to become the norm. But there may be times when cross-community dialogue is needed to move forward, and many folks thought that was the case with MAPO. We had the GAC belatedly declaring it couldn't live with a GNSO-agreed process and expressing interest in talking it through with us, and they were laterally already having such a discussion with ALAC. It's not obvious that insisting on a GNSO-only response would have played well in that context, or for that matter that it'd have ultimately been as productive as the CWG was (unless you feel the recommendations are worse than the status quo ante?). In any event, presumably the choices are 1) a joint request for information that would help us to understand the board's resolution, 2) a GNSO request for the same, or 3) no request. My preference would be for 1, do I understand yours to be 2? Would be good to hear from others… Best, Bill On Oct 6, 2010, at 9:27 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
The new gTLD issues are related to GNSO specific policy. I do not believe it was appropriate for a CWG to self form to deal with what it chose to call an implementation issue any more than it was for the Board to do the same thing with the IRT. At least with the latter the Board eventually sent it back to where it should have been dealt with in the first place, the GNSO. So I was pleased to see the Board response to the policy changes proposed by the MAPO CWG.
If we continue down a path of allowing and even supporting such out of band efforts, then eventually such out of band CWGs will become the norm and used by SGs, ACs, etc. to get their pet issues on the table without going through the accepted processes. Setting policy in that manner is not provided for anywhere in ICANN's bylaws, and I think for good reason.
As Allen points out, the GNSO policy development process allows for participation of all in the community in its WGs. The current CWG efforts have not been to deal with some etherial, non-policy related issues. They are being used to attempt to take a short cut around the established GNSO proceses. IMHO, both the ALAC and the GAC are no longer content with having an Advisory role within the community, and perhaps they never were, but that's where we are at. If that is going to change I would like it to be a frank, open, and direct discussion and not as a result of an unintended imprimatur by the GNSO.
If we stick solely to what Bill has suggested in regards to this recent ALAC request, that may be fine in this instance, but I am concerned about the tone and implications of the entire message from them and would not want to imply that we agree with any other part of it. And as I said earlier, I think some consideration should be given to whether separate inquiries would be better.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] FW: Action item on me from our teleconf yesterday regarding the recent Board Resolutions from Trondheim, reflecting on reports from various WG's including JAS and Rec6 CWG... From: Alan Greenberg Date: Wed, October 06, 2010 11:49 am To: Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr
I believe that the sentence that Tim is referring to is
"It is our belief that particularly where we were jointly operating as Chartering Organisations or in Cross Community mode this would be quite advantageous and if GNSO and/or GAC do wish to do so the ALAC and I look forward to the opportunity to continue to build better and more robust models for multi-stakeholderism and bottom up consensus built policy processes in ICANN."
I do not claim to speak for Cheryl (but I have copied here on this note), but I will give my views. We tend to use the same words but with many different meanings in ICANN. There is no doubt that the Bylaws give the GNSO Council full and sole control of the gTLD Policy Development Process. The PDP is a very specific process and its outcomes are subject to very special Board treatment. With the current working group model that still gives others (both affiliated with AC/SOa or not) the ability to participate.
But in my mind, the GNSO is not the only part of ICANN which has an interest in the more general gTLD issues and the two recent working group are examples. As indicated in the CCT report recently approved by the GNSO Council, cooperation with other ACs and SOs is desirable. I note that Cheryl did not capitalize Policy or Processes and I think clearly meant the terms in their most general sense.
Despite the general Board rejection of the products of the two recent cross-constituency WGs, I would like to think that we need to continue to use such models when and where it seems to be advantageous. The alternative to the direction indicated by the sentence is that the GNSO or the GNSO Council refuse to participate in activities with the other groups, or that the other groups not be allowed to undertake any gTLD-related discussions on their own unless "led" by the GNSO. I don't think that either would be a desirable way forward.
I do not see any of this diluting the role of the GNSO and GNSO Council. It may make things more complex at times, but if that is the price to pay for good outcomes, I think it may be a worthwhile trade-off.
Alan
At 06/10/2010 11:18 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote: Well Bill, if that was all it was about that might be true. But the second sentence of the first paragraph of the excerpt clearly indicates a bigger picture goal. So perhaps how we proceed all depends on how we do it and what it involves. Getting more info on the Board's decisions is one thing, extending it beyond that is another.
Tim
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake ***********************************************************
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
Once again, thanks Bruce. You have been busy today ;) It would be helpful from the rest of the Board to know if they think the same thing you do? I find it a little disconcerting that one Board member has to come out and describe how *they* interpreted a Board Resolution. Maybe the resolutions need to be clearer. I agree the Council should put together a view and push it back to the Board just to know that we are on the same page. It would also be helpful for us to know that the Board are interpreting it in the same way you have, otherwise how do we compare pages? Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 4:17 PM To: Council GNSO 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
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
-----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
Tim, What do you mean by 'current policy'? Do you mean the current version of the guidebook (AGv4)? Chuck -
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
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 1:17 AM To: Council GNSO 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
I am one of those who did not interpret the resolution as dismissing or disagreeing with the Rec6 CWG recommendations and I communicated that on the Rec6 CWG list. The key factor is whether Staff and ultimately the Board determines whether any of the recommendations are inconsistent with the existing (I assume AGv4) process. I personally do not think that any of them are inconsistent but I am not the one who will make that decision. Chuck -
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
participants (7)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Bruce Tonkin -
Gomes, Chuck -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Tim Ruiz -
tim＠godaddy.com
-
William Drake