I agree and see this as a minimum requirement. It is to note that the BGC in its rationale referred to the "GNSO council" only. Anyway to lift the discussion to the GNSO level (rather than the council) means thorough discussion within the constituencies - and the CSG. As Tony is almost not available before Durban I'll send out a related message to the CSG leadership. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 11:11 PM To: Novoa, Osvaldo Cc: ispcp@icann.org Subject: Re: [ispcp] Revised Motion on ICANN Bylaw Recoomendation Osvaldo, you could dramatically improve this resolution by deleting every copy of the word "Council" -- especially the ones in the Whereas sections. i'm much more comfortable inserting the GNSO into this role than i am inserting the GNSO *Council* into it. see if Jeff would take "Council" out of the Whereas's -- especially the second one where it says
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”;
would he be willing to accept the following version? if he is, i think it dramatically improves his motion
Board or staff consultation with the GNSO if the Board or staff is acting in contravention to a statement made by the GNSO Council outside of the PDP”;
mikey On Jun 28, 2013, at 8:54 AM, "Novoa, Osvaldo" <onovoa@antel.com.uy> wrote:
All, Here is a motion that is being circulated in the Council proposing to modify ICANN’s Bylaws. I am no in favour of it and would like to hear your comments. Best regards, Osvaldo
De: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] En nombre de Neuman, Jeff Enviado el: Viernes, 28 de Junio de 2013 09:46 Para: Neuman, Jeff; GNSO Council (council@gnso.icann.org) CC: 'Glen de Saint Géry' Asunto: [council] Revised Motion on ICANN Bylaw Recoomendation
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 athttp://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 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información
This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)