AW: [council] Procedural concerns with gTLDS-com.

["Thomas Keller" <tom@schlund.de>]

Dear Council members,

I want to support the idea of a short but meaningful reply to answer the
question asked by the board. Everything added to this statement which
seems to me represents the consensus of the council might only dilute
the message
we want to send to the board. Saying this I want to add that I honour
the
work accomplished in the committee and that it would be a pity to loose
it. Therefore I propose to go along with Thomas suggestion to supplement
our answer with a "separate" neutral summary of the discussions we had
in the
committee.

Best,

tom

--

Thomas Keller

Domain Services
Schlund + Partner AG
Brauerstrasse 48         		           Tel
+49-721-91374-534
76135 Karlsruhe, Germany               	Fax  +49-721-91374-215
http://www.schlund.de                  	tom@schlund.de

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org] Im Auftrag
von Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP
Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. Mai 2003 19:39
An: Thomas Roessler; Council (E-mail)
Betreff: RE: [council] Procedural concerns with gTLDS-com.

Thanks, Thomas.

I am quite happy to know that the ALAC statement, which I had seen, of
course,
should be taken in to account in both settings.

I am concerned, though, about the really very 'light' participation in
that
forum for the community, but that is a different topic. 

Bruce, can I suggest that it would be very helpful to have Louis Touton,
General
counsel, join us for some portion of the Council meeting and discuss
policy 
development, guidance, etc.  
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@does-not-exist.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 1:18 PM
To: Council (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [council] Procedural concerns with gtld-com.


Dear Marilyn,

thanks a lot for your remarks.  I'm, in particular, glad that you
ask about the ALAC's comments on the introduction of a number of new
sponsored gTLDs.  These comments form part I of the ALAC statement
on new gTLDs which Wendy has submitted to gtld-com on May 6; see
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/gtld-com/Arc00/msg00039.html>.  It's
an unfortunate clerical error that this statement does not, at this
point, occur in ICANN's comment archive.  Thanks for bringing this
to the ALAC's attention.

As to the (quite important!) question of "whether to structure the
evolution of the generic top level name space, and if so, how to do
so" -- we support giving a narrow, consensus-based answer to this
question, and we also support including a neutral and factual
summary of gtld-com's discussions, which can then be used as input
for a PDP on possible criteria for the evaluation future gTLD
applications. As you surely can appreciate, great care must be taken
in drafting such a summary, to make sure that it is not mistaken as
a recommendation or as advice from the council.

In particular, in order to avoid any misunderstandings, it would
seem like a good idea to clearly separate a factual summary of the
committee's discussions from the council's actual response to the
board's question.  It would also seem prudent to avoid phrases like
"recommendation", or the repeated normative use of the word "should"
in a factual summary.

Likewise, for an organization like the GNSO which has formal
mechanisms for establishing consensus, it's important to clearly
distinguish between consensus of the participants to a non-formal
discussion, and consensus which is declared as the outcome of a
formal process.

Thanks again for your remarks, and kind regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler				<roessler@does-not-exist.org>





On 2003-05-19 19:44:33 -0400, Marilyn Cade wrote:

> I wanted to respond to Thomas' emails to Council regarding the
> Council paper on structuring the names space for new gTLDs.

> Of course, Council's response to the Board is not a substitute
> for a PDP. 

> The Board asked for input.

> The Council has undertaken to respond. That is what the Council
> is discussing 5/22. It is appropriate to present that response.  

> Separately, should Council think the time is right to start a PDP
> process on this topic, then that should be the topic of
> discussion with Council, as well as the specific areas which
> would be put into an Issues Report. 
> 
> Now to the approach of the report and my own perspective: I
> support providing an informed response which provides a
> documentation of the discussions and the summary prepared. It is
> responsive to a Board request. I would note that the Council
> needs to understand that it should take seriously its role in
> informing and advising the Board. One word responses are not
> responsive. I support presenting a document to Board which
> captures the various discussions of the Council relevant to the
> question which was referred to Council. I believe that the ALAC
> wants to have an effective and informed participatory role in
> Council.
> 
> BUT, no one should be suggesting that Council responding to the
> Board's request is a substitute for a PDP. So, should a PDP be
> initiated, then of course, public comment processes would apply.
> I see no indication of any kind that PDP type questions are being
> usurped by the Council response. 
> 
> But, I also am a little confused about the attention that this is
> getting, when another opportunity for comment went unnoticed, or
> perhaps I just didn't recognize the ALAC response.  ICANN just
> closed a comment period on the Draft Criteria for the Selection
> of new gTLDS. I was very rushed myself in getting BC comments so
> I do understand the challenges of getting comments developed. But
> I didn't see anything there from the ALAC... and given that this
> is really part of the fuller set of activities related to the
> introduction of new gTLDS, I would have thought it relevant?
> 
> I wonder if perhaps there is more confusion about the entire
> process -- and perhaps all have lost sight that the question sent
> to Council was only part of the outreach of the board?