Page History

...

The  ALAC statement on the CWG Report

Third draftversion, modified during the community consultation conference call and reflecting minor edit suggestions by Alan Greenerg Greenberg (Oct 22, 16:00 UTC) This text was formally submitted to the public comments process collecting community feedback on the Rec6 WG report. It has also been submitted to the ALAC for formal endorsement as advice to the ICANN Board.

The At-Large Community urges the Board to fully implement the consensus recommendations of the Rec6 CWG. The work of this working group was the very example of the multi-stakeholder, bottom-up process that ICANN claims to be its foundation. The Board must encourage the ongoing work of the Rec6 CWG. We are confident that, given some reasonable extra time, outstanding issues that have not yet reached consensus may be resolved.

...

Cross Community Working Group report on GNSO gTLD Recommendation 6 :

Wiki Markup[http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/report-rec6-cwg-21sep10-en.pdf|http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/report-rec6-cwg-21sep10-en.pdf] \ [PDF, 1.06 MB\]

Public comment announcement:

...

There was another part of the gTLD motion that is very relevant - 2.7

2.7 Role of the Board

The Board intends to approve a standard process for staff to proceed to contract execution and delegation on applications for new gTLDs where certain parameters are met.

Examples of such parameters might include: (1) the application criteria were met, (2) no material exceptions to the form agreement terms, and (3) an independent confirmation that the process was followed.

The Board reserves the right under exceptional circumstances to individually consider an application for a new gTLD to determine whether approval would be in the best interest of the Internet community, for example, as a result of the use of an ICANN accountability mechanism. The Board approves the inclusion of a broad waiver and limitation of liability in the application terms and conditions.

This motion gives staff the responsibility to approve applications is certain (presumably common and not very controversial) cases, but even in such cases, the Board reserves the right to intervene. It is not clear whether it was deliberate or an oversight, but the motion does not give staff the right to refuse an application. If this motion stands, and is interpreted as I have, this means that all refusals must come from the Board - pretty much what many on the CWG were asking for.

I think that we need to explicitly support this notion so that if the Board later changes it, we have a history trail to point back to.

...