Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Comment: Migrated to Confluence 4.0

...

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.

...