Elisabeth,
Thank you for your quick and clear answer.
>
>I was confirmed that the third meaning is the correct one.
>This of course relates to Art. VI-B, Section 2(d), of the ICANN bylaws,
>which gives the NC the responsibilty to determine "community
consensus."
>
I have, of course, no objection an the fact that NC has the ultimate
responsibility in determining "community consensus", even if, in the
particular instance, I cannot avoid to note that this perception of the
"community consensus" differs for elected members of different
constituencies.
Thus the basic question. If the NC reps are elected by, and answerable
to, different constituencies, is it reasonable that they take decisions
related not to the appreciation of the needs of their respective
constituencies, but to a estimate (on which basis, BTW?) of the
"Internet Community"? I do not think that it is appropriate that
representative that have been elected with the mission of making the
interests of their respective constituency shall be responsible to
answer such questions "at large".
I personally do not know whether the consensus reached in WG-C can be
considered as a consensus for the "at large" Internet Community, but it
sure looks to me the best possible compromise given the not easily
compromiseable competing interests in the Internet Community.
This can easily be tested.
I invite the NC in the next session to to answer the question:
"Do you think that there is consensus in delegating *less than* 6-10
gTLDs".
What I would like to make clear is that, if there's no consensus
(according to the NC perception) for 6-10, ICANN should not think that
it is appropriate to endorse less.
Also, I personally think that the NC vote on 2000-04-18 has also pre-
empted any possible result from WG-B to be meaningful.
Obviously, a similar question should be asked for the "sunrise"
provision:
"Is there consensus in the Internet Community that special rights (aka
"sunrise provision", aka "jus primae noctis" - for the French speaking
"droit de cuissage") should be given to *all* Trademark owners?"
I would be very much surprised if anybody could honestly claim that such
consesus exists.
Regards
Roberto Gaetano