Draft Statement for Public Forum
Draft Statement for Public Forum: The GNSO Council recently provided advice in response to a letter from the CEO to the effect that an issue being considered was a matter of policy, rather than implementation. It was Staff’s view that the issue was implementation and not policy, and accordingly it was the Staff’s decision to proceed with the first steps of implementation. It is the Council’s firmly held view that when there is not an agreement on whether or not such an item is policy, as in this case, that the Staff must refer back to the Council before proceeding further. Indeed, as a general point, it is the Council’s view that should it provide policy advice to the Staff and/or the Board in the future, then in the event that Staff and/or Board seek to act adverse to the Council’s advice, they should certainly not do so without further reference back to the Council.
Some revisions: The GNSO Council would like to remind the ICANN staff and Board that it is the only entity charged with policy development and providing recommendations to the Board on substantive policies relating to generic top level domains. The GNSO Council recently provided advice in response to a letter from the CEO to the effect that an issue being considered was a matter of policy, rather than implementation. It was Staff's view that the issue was implementation and not policy, and accordingly it was the Staff's decision to proceed with implementation of what the majority of the Council believed was policy. It is the Council's firmly held view that when there is not an agreement on whether or not such an item is policy, as in this case, that the Staff and/or the ICANN Board must refer back to the Council before proceeding further. Indeed, as a general point, it is the Council's view that should it provide policy advice to the Staff and/or the Board in the future, then in the event that Staff and/or Board seek to act in a manner that is not consistent with the Council's advice, then the Staff and/or Board must consult with the GNSO Council, explain the rationale behind its decision, and allow the Council, at a minimum, to respond to the Staff or Board's decision. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 6:54 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Draft Statement for Public Forum Draft Statement for Public Forum: The GNSO Council recently provided advice in response to a letter from the CEO to the effect that an issue being considered was a matter of policy, rather than implementation. It was Staff's view that the issue was implementation and not policy, and accordingly it was the Staff's decision to proceed with the first steps of implementation. It is the Council's firmly held view that when there is not an agreement on whether or not such an item is policy, as in this case, that the Staff must refer back to the Council before proceeding further. Indeed, as a general point, it is the Council's view that should it provide policy advice to the Staff and/or the Board in the future, then in the event that Staff and/or Board seek to act adverse to the Council's advice, they should certainly not do so without further reference back to the Council.
This looks good to me. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 10, 2013, at 11:19 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> wrote:
Some revisions:
The GNSO Council would like to remind the ICANN staff and Board that it is the only entity charged with policy development and providing recommendations to the Board on substantive policies relating to generic top level domains. The GNSO Council recently provided advice in response to a letter from the CEO to the effect that an issue being considered was a matter of policy, rather than implementation. It was Staff’s view that the issue was implementation and not policy, and accordingly it was the Staff’s decision to proceed with implementation of what the majority of the Council believed was policy. It is the Council’s firmly held view that when there is not an agreement on whether or not such an item is policy, as in this case, that the Staff and/or the ICANN Board must refer back to the Council before proceeding further.
Indeed, as a general point, it is the Council’s view that should it provide policy advice to the Staff and/or the Board in the future, then in the event that Staff and/or Board seek to act in a manner that is not consistent with the Council’s advice, then the Staff and/or Board must consult with the GNSO Council, explain the rationale behind its decision, and allow the Council, at a minimum, to respond to the Staff or Board’s decision.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 6:54 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Draft Statement for Public Forum
Draft Statement for Public Forum:
The GNSO Council recently provided advice in response to a letter from the CEO to the effect that an issue being considered was a matter of policy, rather than implementation. It was Staff’s view that the issue was implementation and not policy, and accordingly it was the Staff’s decision to proceed with the first steps of implementation. It is the Council’s firmly held view that when there is not an agreement on whether or not such an item is policy, as in this case, that the Staff must refer back to the Council before proceeding further.
Indeed, as a general point, it is the Council’s view that should it provide policy advice to the Staff and/or the Board in the future, then in the event that Staff and/or Board seek to act adverse to the Council’s advice, they should certainly not do so without further reference back to the Council.
Agree. Thanks Jonathan and Jeff. --Wendy On 04/10/2013 05:23 PM, Mason Cole wrote:
This looks good to me.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 10, 2013, at 11:19 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> wrote:
Some revisions:
The GNSO Council would like to remind the ICANN staff and Board that it is the only entity charged with policy development and providing recommendations to the Board on substantive policies relating to generic top level domains. The GNSO Council recently provided advice in response to a letter from the CEO to the effect that an issue being considered was a matter of policy, rather than implementation. It was Staff’s view that the issue was implementation and not policy, and accordingly it was the Staff’s decision to proceed with implementation of what the majority of the Council believed was policy. It is the Council’s firmly held view that when there is not an agreement on whether or not such an item is policy, as in this case, that the Staff and/or the ICANN Board must refer back to the Council before proceeding further.
Indeed, as a general point, it is the Council’s view that should it provide policy advice to the Staff and/or the Board in the future, then in the event that Staff and/or Board seek to act in a manner that is not consistent with the Council’s advice, then the Staff and/or Board must consult with the GNSO Council, explain the rationale behind its decision, and allow the Council, at a minimum, to respond to the Staff or Board’s decision.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 6:54 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Draft Statement for Public Forum
Draft Statement for Public Forum:
The GNSO Council recently provided advice in response to a letter from the CEO to the effect that an issue being considered was a matter of policy, rather than implementation. It was Staff’s view that the issue was implementation and not policy, and accordingly it was the Staff’s decision to proceed with the first steps of implementation. It is the Council’s firmly held view that when there is not an agreement on whether or not such an item is policy, as in this case, that the Staff must refer back to the Council before proceeding further.
Indeed, as a general point, it is the Council’s view that should it provide policy advice to the Staff and/or the Board in the future, then in the event that Staff and/or Board seek to act adverse to the Council’s advice, they should certainly not do so without further reference back to the Council.
Has my full support. Wolfgang -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Thu 4/11/2013 1:38 AM To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Draft Statement for Public Forum Agree. Thanks Jonathan and Jeff. --Wendy On 04/10/2013 05:23 PM, Mason Cole wrote:
This looks good to me.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 10, 2013, at 11:19 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> wrote:
Some revisions:
The GNSO Council would like to remind the ICANN staff and Board that it is the only entity charged with policy development and providing recommendations to the Board on substantive policies relating to generic top level domains. The GNSO Council recently provided advice in response to a letter from the CEO to the effect that an issue being considered was a matter of policy, rather than implementation. It was Staff's view that the issue was implementation and not policy, and accordingly it was the Staff's decision to proceed with implementation of what the majority of the Council believed was policy. It is the Council's firmly held view that when there is not an agreement on whether or not such an item is policy, as in this case, that the Staff and/or the ICANN Board must refer back to the Council before proceeding further.
Indeed, as a general point, it is the Council's view that should it provide policy advice to the Staff and/or the Board in the future, then in the event that Staff and/or Board seek to act in a manner that is not consistent with the Council's advice, then the Staff and/or Board must consult with the GNSO Council, explain the rationale behind its decision, and allow the Council, at a minimum, to respond to the Staff or Board's decision.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 6:54 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Draft Statement for Public Forum
Draft Statement for Public Forum:
The GNSO Council recently provided advice in response to a letter from the CEO to the effect that an issue being considered was a matter of policy, rather than implementation. It was Staff's view that the issue was implementation and not policy, and accordingly it was the Staff's decision to proceed with the first steps of implementation. It is the Council's firmly held view that when there is not an agreement on whether or not such an item is policy, as in this case, that the Staff must refer back to the Council before proceeding further.
Indeed, as a general point, it is the Council's view that should it provide policy advice to the Staff and/or the Board in the future, then in the event that Staff and/or Board seek to act adverse to the Council's advice, they should certainly not do so without further reference back to the Council.
I support in general, but for one small nit: Did not the paper from ICANN staff agree that the 50+ abused terms were likely policy and still elided to implement it? I feel that this is even more problematic than the issue of a dispute if an issue is implementation or policy. Volker On 2013-04-11, at 11:06 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
Has my full support.
Wolfgang
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Thu 4/11/2013 1:38 AM To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Draft Statement for Public Forum
Agree. Thanks Jonathan and Jeff.
--Wendy
On 04/10/2013 05:23 PM, Mason Cole wrote:
This looks good to me.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 10, 2013, at 11:19 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> wrote:
Some revisions:
The GNSO Council would like to remind the ICANN staff and Board that it is the only entity charged with policy development and providing recommendations to the Board on substantive policies relating to generic top level domains. The GNSO Council recently provided advice in response to a letter from the CEO to the effect that an issue being considered was a matter of policy, rather than implementation. It was Staff's view that the issue was implementation and not policy, and accordingly it was the Staff's decision to proceed with implementation of what the majority of the Council believed was policy. It is the Council's firmly held view that when there is not an agreement on whether or not such an item is policy, as in this case, that the Staff and/or the ICANN Board must refer back to the Council before proceeding further.
Indeed, as a general point, it is the Council's view that should it provide policy advice to the Staff and/or the Board in the future, then in the event that Staff and/or Board seek to act in a manner that is not consistent with the Council's advice, then the Staff and/or Board must consult with the GNSO Council, explain the rationale behind its decision, and allow the Council, at a minimum, to respond to the Staff or Board's decision.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 6:54 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Draft Statement for Public Forum
Draft Statement for Public Forum:
The GNSO Council recently provided advice in response to a letter from the CEO to the effect that an issue being considered was a matter of policy, rather than implementation. It was Staff's view that the issue was implementation and not policy, and accordingly it was the Staff's decision to proceed with the first steps of implementation. It is the Council's firmly held view that when there is not an agreement on whether or not such an item is policy, as in this case, that the Staff must refer back to the Council before proceeding further.
Indeed, as a general point, it is the Council's view that should it provide policy advice to the Staff and/or the Board in the future, then in the event that Staff and/or Board seek to act adverse to the Council's advice, they should certainly not do so without further reference back to the Council.
I wouldn’t complicate the coordination, but couldn’t we easily refine the language so that the GNSO is providing the advice, not just the council? I think this was the case with the CEO letter. The ISPCP is fine with the text itself. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Neuman, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:19 PM To: 'Jonathan Robinson' ; GNSO Council List Subject: RE: [council] Draft Statement for Public Forum Some revisions: The GNSO Council would like to remind the ICANN staff and Board that it is the only entity charged with policy development and providing recommendations to the Board on substantive policies relating to generic top level domains. The GNSO Council recently provided advice in response to a letter from the CEO to the effect that an issue being considered was a matter of policy, rather than implementation. It was Staff’s view that the issue was implementation and not policy, and accordingly it was the Staff’s decision to proceed with implementation of what the majority of the Council believed was policy. It is the Council’s firmly held view that when there is not an agreement on whether or not such an item is policy, as in this case, that the Staff and/or the ICANN Board must refer back to the Council before proceeding further. Indeed, as a general point, it is the Council’s view that should it provide policy advice to the Staff and/or the Board in the future, then in the event that Staff and/or Board seek to act in a manner that is not consistent with the Council’s advice, then the Staff and/or Board must consult with the GNSO Council, explain the rationale behind its decision, and allow the Council, at a minimum, to respond to the Staff or Board’s decision. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 6:54 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Draft Statement for Public Forum Draft Statement for Public Forum: The GNSO Council recently provided advice in response to a letter from the CEO to the effect that an issue being considered was a matter of policy, rather than implementation. It was Staff’s view that the issue was implementation and not policy, and accordingly it was the Staff’s decision to proceed with the first steps of implementation. It is the Council’s firmly held view that when there is not an agreement on whether or not such an item is policy, as in this case, that the Staff must refer back to the Council before proceeding further. Indeed, as a general point, it is the Council’s view that should it provide policy advice to the Staff and/or the Board in the future, then in the event that Staff and/or Board seek to act adverse to the Council’s advice, they should certainly not do so without further reference back to the Council.
Jonathan, I am good with this. Berard --------- Original Message ---------Subject: [council] Draft Statement for Public Forum From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: 4/10/13 3:54 am To: "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Draft Statement for Public Forum: The GNSO Council recently provided advice in response to a letter from the CEO to the effect that an issue being considered was a matter of policy, rather than implementation. It was Staff’s view that the issue was implementation and not policy, and accordingly it was the Staff’s decision to proceed with the first steps of implementation. It is the Council’s firmly held view that when there is not an agreement on whether or not such an item is policy, as in this case, that the Staff must refer back to the Council before proceeding further. Indeed, as a general point, it is the Council’s view that should it provide policy advice to the Staff and/or the Board in the future, then in the event that Staff and/or Board seek to act adverse to the Council’s advice, they should certainly not do so without further reference back to the Council.
participants (8)
-
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" -
john＠crediblecontext.com -
Jonathan Robinson -
Mason Cole -
Neuman, Jeff -
VOLKER GREIMANN -
Wendy Seltzer -
WUKnoben