All,

Overnight I got some fantastic comments from several people about the motion, so I have made a couple of changes. Here is the new motion, with the changed parts in red. Basically I added a second sentence to the definition of the GNSO recognizing the role that the GNSO has with respect to providing advice on implementation of policies relating to generic TLDs. What that process is and how to delineate whether something is policy or implementation is being worked on by the Policy v. implementation Working Group we have set up, but as the BGC recognizes, the Board should be coming to the GNSO community for advice on implementation issues as well as policy issues.

Again, to be clear, all this is saying is that IF the GNSO issues advice AND the Board acts inconsistent with that advice, the only thing the Board should do is meet with the GNSO in good faith, offer its reasons, and attempt to work out a solution. That’s it. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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:

a) add a second sentence to Article X, Section 1 such that Section 1 would now read: “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. The GNSO is also responsible for providing advice to the ICANN Board on the implementation of policies relating to generic top-level domains.”

b) 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 advice. Such process shall require the ICANN Board to state the reasons why it decided not to follow GNSO advice, 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 advice was 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

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 10:44 PM
To: GNSO Council (council@gnso.icann.org)
Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry'
Subject: [council] Revised Rationale for Rejection of NCSG Reconsideration Request & Proposed Motion for Durban Council Meeting

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, 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 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 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz