FYI:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [gtld-council] Regarding consensus
Date: 	Fri, 25 May 2007 02:44:11 -0700
From: 	Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: 	[log in to unmask]
Organization: 	IP Justice
To: 	Bruce Tonkin <[log in to unmask]>, 
[log in to unmask]
References: 	<[log in to unmask]> 
<[log in to unmask]> 
<[log in to unmask]>



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.
>
>
>  
>