Fwd: Revised Rationale for Rejection of NCSG Reconsideration Request & Proposed Motion for Durban Council Meeting
In relation to my last note, I find this rather interesting, and something that the ALAC may want to think about. Specifically should we request a similar Bylaw revision for our formal advice. Perhaps this is something we want to put on the ALAC-Board meeting agenda. Alan
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> To: "GNSO Council (council@gnso.icann.org)" <council@gnso.icann.org> CC: 'Glen de Saint Géry' <Glen@icann.org> Subject: [council] Revised Rationale for Rejection of NCSG Reconsideration Request & Proposed Motion for Durban Council Meeting Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 02:43:39 +0000
Although I am sure that some on the Council will still disagree with the new rationale posted at <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendation-ncsg-25jun13-en.pdf>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendation-ncsg-25jun13-en.pdf, I believe the rationale is much more consistent with, and recognizes, the value of the multi-stakeholder model. The tone has been softened considerably and is much more respectful, in my opinion. In addition, the rationale upon my quick read seems to be technically correct. I am grateful to the Board Governance Committee for having taken some of our comments very seriously and for making the appropriate changes to the rationale.
The one item I would still like to see addressed by the Council (other than the Policy v. Implementation discussions within the GNSO Working Group process) is formalizing the requirement through a proposed Bylaws Amendment requiring consultation of the GNSO if the Board proposes to take an action that is inconsistent with a policy or statement of the GNSO. I intend to draft that motion for the Councils consideration in Durban.
To give all of the constituencies ample time to review the motion prior to Durban, although I am sure some will seek to defer the motion, claiming insufficient time to review, I am attaching this proposed resolution for consideration in Durban. I am happy to take comments, edits or suggestions:
WHEREAS, the ICANN Bylaws currently state: There shall be a policy-development body known as the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains;
WHEREAS, the Board Governance Committee has recognized in Reconsideration Request 13-3 that As of now, there is no defined policy or process within ICANN that requires Board or staff consultation with the GNSO Council if the Board or staff is acting in contravention to a statement made by the GNSO Council outside of the PDP; and
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council believes that such a defined policy or process is now needed. RESOLVED: The GNSO Council recommends that the ICANN Bylaws be amended to include language requiring a formal consultation process in the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with GNSO policies or recommendations. Such process shall require the ICANN Board to state the reasons why it decided not to follow GNSO recommendations or policies, and be followed in a timely manner, with a consultation in which the GNSO and the ICANN Board attempt in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no such solution can be found, the ICANN Board will state in its final decision the reasons why the GNSO recommendations or policies were not followed.
FURTHER RESOLVED that the GNSO recommends the above to apply whether or not the policy development process as set forth in Article X, section 6 were followed.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
Um, here again, the age old problem of unrequited love. Seems to me what the proposed resolution is really asking is for a revision and extension of the meaning of the phrase 'developing and recommending' in the quoted bylaw. Maybe not a bad idea to put our hand in the pot as well..... -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
In relation to my last note, I find this rather interesting, and something that the ALAC may want to think about. Specifically should we request a similar Bylaw revision for our formal advice. Perhaps this is something we want to put on the ALAC-Board meeting agenda.
Alan
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> To: "GNSO Council (council@gnso.icann.org)" <council@gnso.icann.org> CC: 'Glen de Saint Géry' <Glen@icann.org> Subject: [council] Revised Rationale for Rejection of NCSG Reconsideration Request & Proposed Motion for Durban Council Meeting Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 02:43:39 +0000
Although I am sure that some on the Council will still disagree with the new rationale posted at < http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati...
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati... ,
I believe the rationale is much more consistent with, and recognizes, the value of the multi-stakeholder model. The tone has been softened considerably and is much more respectful, in my opinion. In addition, the rationale upon my quick read seems to be technically correct. I am grateful to the Board Governance Committee for having taken some of our comments very seriously and for making the appropriate changes to the rationale.
The one item I would still like to see addressed by the Council (other than the Policy v. Implementation discussions within the GNSO Working Group process) is formalizing the requirement through a proposed Bylaws Amendment requiring consultation of the GNSO if the Board proposes to take an action that is inconsistent with a policy or statement of the GNSO. I intend to draft that motion for the Council’s consideration in Durban.
To give all of the constituencies ample time to review the motion prior to Durban, although I am sure some will seek to defer the motion, claiming insufficient time to review, I am attaching this proposed resolution for consideration in Durban. I am happy to take comments, edits or suggestions:
WHEREAS, the ICANN Bylaws currently state: There shall be a policy-development body known as the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains;
WHEREAS, the Board Governance Committee has recognized in Reconsideration Request 13-3 that “As of now, there is no defined policy or process within ICANN that requires Board or staff consultation with the GNSO Council if the Board or staff is acting in contravention to a statement made by the GNSO Council outside of the PDP”; and
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council believes that such a defined policy or process is now needed. RESOLVED: The GNSO Council recommends that the ICANN Bylaws be amended to include language requiring a formal consultation process in the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with GNSO policies or recommendations. Such process shall require the ICANN Board to state the reasons why it decided not to follow GNSO recommendations or policies, and be followed in a timely manner, with a consultation in which the GNSO and the ICANN Board attempt in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no such solution can be found, the ICANN Board will state in its final decision the reasons why the GNSO recommendations or policies were not followed.
FURTHER RESOLVED that the GNSO recommends the above to apply whether or not the policy development process as set forth in Article X, section 6 were followed.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Re, the motion, I think there should be some thought given to exceptions and defining the exceptions. Sent from my iPad On Jul 1, 2013, at 9:42 AM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Um, here again, the age old problem of unrequited love.
Seems to me what the proposed resolution is really asking is for a revision and extension of the meaning of the phrase 'developing and recommending' in the quoted bylaw.
Maybe not a bad idea to put our hand in the pot as well.....
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
In relation to my last note, I find this rather interesting, and something that the ALAC may want to think about. Specifically should we request a similar Bylaw revision for our formal advice. Perhaps this is something we want to put on the ALAC-Board meeting agenda.
Alan
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> To: "GNSO Council (council@gnso.icann.org)" <council@gnso.icann.org> CC: 'Glen de Saint Géry' <Glen@icann.org> Subject: [council] Revised Rationale for Rejection of NCSG Reconsideration Request & Proposed Motion for Durban Council Meeting Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 02:43:39 +0000
Although I am sure that some on the Council will still disagree with the new rationale posted at < http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati... http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati... , I believe the rationale is much more consistent with, and recognizes, the value of the multi-stakeholder model. The tone has been softened considerably and is much more respectful, in my opinion. In addition, the rationale upon my quick read seems to be technically correct. I am grateful to the Board Governance Committee for having taken some of our comments very seriously and for making the appropriate changes to the rationale.
The one item I would still like to see addressed by the Council (other than the Policy v. Implementation discussions within the GNSO Working Group process) is formalizing the requirement through a proposed Bylaws Amendment requiring consultation of the GNSO if the Board proposes to take an action that is inconsistent with a policy or statement of the GNSO. I intend to draft that motion for the Council’s consideration in Durban.
To give all of the constituencies ample time to review the motion prior to Durban, although I am sure some will seek to defer the motion, claiming insufficient time to review, I am attaching this proposed resolution for consideration in Durban. I am happy to take comments, edits or suggestions:
WHEREAS, the ICANN Bylaws currently state: There shall be a policy-development body known as the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains;
WHEREAS, the Board Governance Committee has recognized in Reconsideration Request 13-3 that “As of now, there is no defined policy or process within ICANN that requires Board or staff consultation with the GNSO Council if the Board or staff is acting in contravention to a statement made by the GNSO Council outside of the PDP”; and
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council believes that such a defined policy or process is now needed. RESOLVED: The GNSO Council recommends that the ICANN Bylaws be amended to include language requiring a formal consultation process in the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with GNSO policies or recommendations. Such process shall require the ICANN Board to state the reasons why it decided not to follow GNSO recommendations or policies, and be followed in a timely manner, with a consultation in which the GNSO and the ICANN Board attempt in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no such solution can be found, the ICANN Board will state in its final decision the reasons why the GNSO recommendations or policies were not followed.
FURTHER RESOLVED that the GNSO recommends the above to apply whether or not the policy development process as set forth in Article X, section 6 were followed.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Carlton Samuels -
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro