Hi John, I’m not sure I fully understand what it is you are suggesting (apologies on my part for that), but to clarify my question in case I wasn’t too clear; I was asking about the letter sent to Fadi and Steve, which I believe was drafted and discussed on the SO/AC Leadership list. My question was not about the Reconsideration Request, which as you pointed out, was submitted by the Business Constituency, the NCSG and the Registries. I don’t see any reason that suggests that submitting the RR equates to signing the letter. Furthermore, I don’t believe it sheds much light on the process that would be required in order for the letter to be signed on behalf of the Council. Again…, I may have just misunderstood what you were trying to convey. Personally however, I find Jonathan’s take on this to be understandable. Although I have to say that the general perception I have personally observed amongst some is that this letter wasn’t so much one submitted by individuals in their personal capacities, but rather by individuals representing their stakeholder groups, constituencies, SOs and ACs. That was my personal perception as well (but thanks for the clarification, Jonathan). From what I’ve seen, it wasn’t the letter being published on the ICANN correspondence page so much that led to this perception as much as this CircleID blog: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140828_icann_community_issues_letter_questio... Thanks. Amr On Aug 31, 2014, at 9:56 PM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:

Jonathan, Amr:

As you, Jonathan, were elected by the Registries and you, Amr, by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, your names, like mine and Gabi's, are already, technically, on the request for reconsideration. If Councillors from the Registrars, ISPC or IPC or even our NomComm appointed colleagues were to want the Council to consider it, that would be pushing the issue further along and I would support. But I think such an initiative ought to come from a Councillor whose "name" is not already on the request.

Cheers,

Berard

--------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] RE: [council] Letter to Fadi Chehadé and Stephen Crocker August 26th, 2014 From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: 8/31/14 10:15 am To: "'Amr Elsadr'" <aelsadr@egyptig.org>, "'GNSO Council List'" <council@gnso.icann.org>

Thanks Amr,

Good point and good question and I'd welcome a discussion in and around the issues at some point.

Key point is that whenever I communicate with the authority of Council (by motion or consensus) I typically write:

A. As Chair B. For and on behalf of the Council

In this case, I was asked if I would sign onto the letter as myself, not on behalf of the Council. Now, clearly I am chair and cannot expect my comments to be seen completely independent of the GNSO/Council.

In this (rare) case, I made a judgement call that I could sign off on it, in part because there was significant support from the SG & Constituency leadership colleagues from the GNSO.

If you see the list of names at the end, it is a list of names and not for and on behalf of the SGs & Constituencies in each case.

Hope that helps clarify.

Jonathan

-----Original Message----- From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org] Sent: 31 August 2014 15:17 To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Letter to Fadi Chehadé and Stephen Crocker August 26th, 2014

Hi,

I’ve been wondering about this letter for a couple of days now (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/cooper-et-al-to-chehad e-et-al-26aug14-en.pdf), and am asking Jonathan and everyone else what the procedure is for the GNSO (or GNSO Council) to sign off on it.

I would imagine that a motion and a vote would be necessary, and I imagine that it would have been received positively by the majority of Councillors, but I don’t recall a discussion taking place. I’m thinking there was either a discussion I’ve completely overlooked, or a procedural issue I’m not aware of.

To be honest, I wasn’t very much in favour of having the NCSG sign off on this letter when it was discussed at the stakeholder group level (and I don’t believe the NCSG did actually sign off on it despite being listed as a signatory). That is not to say that I am particularly happy with the way the Accountability Process is moving forward, but would have preferred if there was a more concrete reason to request a delay in the process than to simply formulate questions. Speaking for myself, I think the reconsideration request filed (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/request-bc-rysg-ncsg-29aug14-en .pdf) served this purpose more eloquently.

I only mention my personal preference in the substantive merits of the letter to clarify my personal thoughts, but my question is a process question irrespective of the actual contents of the letter.

I would appreciate any and all thoughts on this.

Thanks.

Amr