Hi Jonathan, On action item 2, I've asked my colleagues in the NCSG to help me draft a letter. What is our deadline? All the best, Maria On 13 September 2013 10:53, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>wrote:
All,****
** **
Regarding the GNSO Council Action Items, at our last meeting, we agreed to confirm the requirement with respect to the following:****
** **
*BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3*****
1. The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the Board Governance Committee (copying the New gTLD Programme Committee). *Jeff Neumann to draft*****
2. The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the ATRT2. *A volunteer to draft*.****
a. To highlight concerns with the reconsideration process as a mechanism for ensuring accountability and transparency.****
b. To not propose a specific remedy but rather to leave that to the ATRT.* ***
3. The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the ICANN Board. *Jonathan to draft*.****
a. To summarise and refer to both 1 & 2 above****
b. To highlight on-going concerns about the issue of accountability for actions (implementation or policy) which are not in agreement with GNSO policy or policy advice.****
c. To propose solutions such as:****
- Agreement to effectively communicate with the GNSO in the event that a decision goes against such policy or policy advice (something we have already agreed to on the back of our Beijing / recent discussions)****
- Possible change/s to the ICANN bylaws****
** **
Having seen the outcome of the latest reconsideration request i.e. as follows:****
** **
*Based on the foregoing, the BGC concludes that Booking.com has not stated proper *
*grounds for reconsideration and we therefore recommend that Booking.com’s request be denied*
*without further consideration. This Request challenges a substantive decision taken by a panel in*
*the New gTLD Program and not the process by which that decision was taken. As stated in our*
*Recommendation on Request 13-2, Reconsideration is not a mechanism for direct, de novo*
*appeal of staff or panel decisions with which the requester disagrees, and seeking such relief is,*
*in fact, in contravention of the established processes within ICANN.*
** **
It strikes me that point 2 above, assisted by the latest reconsideration decision, remains valid.****
** **
Looking at points 1 & 3 above, it strikes me that 1 is no longer required and has been dealt with by other communications and actions but 3 may still be valid.****
** **
Therefore, please can you assist me by confirming (or denying) that going forwards, we should complete the action by:****
** **
**1. **Dropping Action 1 above****
**2. **Completing Action 2 above (If so, a volunteer to draft please?)****
**3. **Completing 3 above.****
** **
Thank-you.****
** **
** **
** **
Jonathan****
** **