[Fwd: Re: [gtld-council] Regarding consensus]

[Robin Gross]

FYI:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [gtld-council] Regarding consensus
Date: 	Fri, 25 May 2007 02:44:11 -0700
From: 	Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
Reply-To: 	robin at ipjustice.org
Organization: 	IP Justice
To: 	Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>,
gtld-council at gnso.icann.org
References: 	<57AD40AED823A7439D25CD09604BFB54046D4096 at balius.mit>
<206798.94531.qm at web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<57AD40AED823A7439D25CD09604BFB54046D4B59 at balius.mit>



I have not seen the majority consensus that supports this controversial
draft proposal on new gtlds.   I question this point.

I think we need to have some discussion as to whether the existing draft
policy for new gtlds does, in fact, reflect the view of the majority of
the gtld-council.   I have had conversations with other council members
who also question the direction that this policy takes.

It seems to me that we are rushing to conclude this policy
recommendation, perhaps for administrative reasons; but it is no where
near a coherent policy that reflects the reality of existing
international law, or the reality that an ICANN process could, as a
practical matter, decide between competing public policy goals or
differing views of morality.

So I'd like to propose three things:

1. Discuss whether the existing draft policy actually reflects the
consensus view of the committee.

2.  Accept input from neutral outside experts regarding how this draft
policy tracks existing international legal standards for trademark
rights and free expression rights.

3.  In February, NCUC made a proposal to amend the draft policy
recommendation, and the draft has yet to deal with the NCUC proposal in
any way.
 http://www.ipjustice.org/ICANN/drafts/022207.html
So I respectfully request that the policy development process deal with,
or at least explain, why these proposals are not being considered.

Thank you,
Robin

>
>I think it comes down to whether the point is seen as a "friendly
>amendment" - ie in someway enhances the current recommendation, or
>whether the point is essentially an argument against the recommendation
>as a whole, or is a completely new recommendation.   The recommendations
>as they are drafted are intended to reflect the staff's understanding of
>the majority.
>
>
>
>