I don't think the EOI work needs to fall under a PDP process. Tim has made what I consider to be a valid point about this on the EOI group list. This is just an implementation issue that relates to the GNSO recommendations for an orderly and predictable rollout. The EOI would not change the application process, or any recommendations of the GNSO. It just provides better order and predictability for the application process.
Stéphane
Le 10 nov. 2009 à 00:58, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
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
|