|
I
understand the interest of potential applicants to have an EoI solution provided
as soon as possible although the board has not yet decided upon, and I welcome
this initiative. On the other hand the approach of this group formation looks a bit
strange to me. From the membership structure they looks lik a GNSO WG (I
wonder whether it has been discussed within the constituencies/SGs). They
also request ICANN staff ressources which are needed for other activities
already in the pipe. Has this already been accepted by ICANN? Ressources are
rare.
Is this the way
to organize the WG-model based work in future? I don't think
so.
I thought there is a commitment of the GNSO as well as
the board on how to deal with policy development issues. If we start it
this way we may be confronted with more particular interest groups in future
trying to bypass the GNSO.
Anyway, before we decide to get engaged we should be clear
whether and to what extent the EoI is of interest for our
work.
Comments welcome.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
I compliment those involved with the EoI group in what I
believe are sincere efforts to make some constructive contributions to the new
gTLD process. I think we should always encourage community members to take
initiate and collaborate with other similarly minded community members in
developing input to ICANN processes.
I am assuming that they sent a letter to Rod,
Peter, Doug and Kurt because the Board passed a motion regarding a possible EoI
effort. In that letter they said, "Our
consensus-based, cross-community final draft will be presented to staff with
minimal delay so that they can take comments from the wider community and
subsequently prepare a plan for the Board as called for in the Board
resolution." Based on the proposed membership of the group, I
conclude that they define 'cross-community' as those who are strongly
interested in speeding up the new gTLD process, so when they say
'consensus-based', it appears that they mean consensus of like minded
parties. That is okay in my opinion as long as they are clear about that
and don't try to represent their efforts otherwise.
Their efforts are clearly not an effort of the GNSO because
they have not made any efforts to communicate with the GNSO Council in its
role as the policy management body for the GNSO. As far as I am
aware, they have not asked the GNSO Council to provide an observer to their
group. I am not suggesting that they are in any way required to involve
the Council, but at some point it seems to me that the issues they are
confronting will need to come back to the GNSO. Without being critical in
any way, they may not want this to be a GNSO process because, if it was, we
would need to follow the GNSO PDP in the Bylaws.
Because we have not received a request to provide an
observer, it doesn't seem to me that we are in a position to provide an
observer. If they did invite the Council to provide an observer on behalf of the
GNSO, what would the role of that observer be? We would need to understand
that before making any decisions.
Based on what we know right now, I don't think there is
anything to prevent Stephane from participating in the EoI group as long as it
is clear that he is doing so strictly in his personal capacity and not as a
representative from the Council.
Other thoughts are welcome.
Chuck
Please find below, and attached, information on an "expressions of
interest" group that is being formed in response to one of the Board
resolutions from the Seoul meeting.
Please note that although I am listed as GNSO Observer, I have made no
claims to holding such status. I was invited to join in a personal capacity
and requested if I could inform the Council of the existence of the
group.
If the Council would like me to play the role of observer to this group,
I would be happy to do so. If however the Council wishes for someone else to
play that role, I would be happy to forward that name to the group and have
their initial charter/proposal amended to reflect this.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Début du message réexpédié :
Date :
6
novembre 2009 17:18:17 HNEC
Objet :
Update on
"Expressions of Interest" Group
Hi everyone and thank you for either showing up at our initial meeting
on October 29 in Seoul, or if you didn't, thanks for expressing your
willingness to work with us going forward.
Jothan and I and Liz
Williams have been working to get our documents in order. I
attach them here:
1. Our charter
2. Our draft proposal,
incorporating input taken during our first meeting
If you have
comments, please note them and present them at our first teleconference,
which will be Monday, Nov. 16.
We have set ourselves a tight schedule
(see "timeline" in the proposal), but we may be heartened by the fact that
the question at hand is not a complicated one. We foresee having
two phone calls over the next 10 days after which a draft proposal
will be sent to the ICANN staff for their polish (we are restricted to this
methodology by the wording ICANN Board resolution).
In addition to
confirming everyone receiving this email, we are reaching out to others to
join our group. Our prospective panel is listed in both of the
attached documents. We think it's representative of a good
cross-section of the ICANN community, as well being geographically diverse,
and we believe that these are people who will work to achieve consensus.
We don't know how many will agree but we hope most.
One
of us will be in touch soon to provide call-in information for our first
call, scheduled for Monday.
I am of course available for questions,
as is Liz.
Thanks for your
participation,
Antony
|