[ALAC] BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Wed Jun 19 01:53:33 UTC 2013
I forward this note from Bruce Tonkin to the GNSO
Council. It raises a number of issues that I
think warrant discussion within the ALAC. I will
give my veiw on some of these issues in a few
days, but wanted to let everyone think about it in parallel.
Alan
>From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
>To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>Subject: [council] RE: BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3
>Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:35:54 +0000
>
>Hello All,
>
>Thank you for the letter from the GNSO Council
>regarding Reconsideration Request 13-3.
>
>Just an update.
>
>The Board Governance Committee had an extensive
>discussion around this topic in its meeting
>today. Staff will be reviewing the text of
>the rationale following the discussion. The
>current plan is for the Board Governance
>Committee to meet again on 25 June 2013 to review the rationale.
>
>In terms of a discussion in Durban, I suggest we
>have the discussion around GNSO advice, and
>involvement of the GNSO in the implementation of
>policies, outside of the context of the wording
>of the rationale. I.e. I think we should
>discuss this at a broader level - ie what are
>the lessons learned from this case - rather than debate the case itself.
>
>The Board Governance Committee is also having
>discussions about the broader topic and would
>welcome further discussions in Durban. It is
>also a useful topic for the Board as a whole,
>and certainly has been a topic of the past two public ICANN meetings.
>
>As I see it, we have a detailed process in the
>bylaws that sets out how the GNSO develops
>policy recommendations, and how the Board
>approves those recommendations to form ICANN
>policy. The GNSO is free to create policy
>recommendations using the PDP on any of the new
>gTLD topics - including the trademark
>clearinghouse. These policy recommendations
>may change current policies, or current
>implementations of policies (e.g. . various
>implementation details of the transfers policy).
>
>As Jeff and others have pointed out, the bylaws
>are less clear on how the Board and staff should
>treat advice from the GNSO Council on
>implementations of ICANN policies
>etc. Presently this is primarily treated via
>the various public comment forums but there is
>no special standing for the GNSO in those
>forums, and through the various meetings between
>the Board and the GNSO Council at its public
>meetings. There is no defined process at this
>point however. In contrast the bylaws do set
>out formal processes for responding to GAC
>advice which frequently focus on implementation of policies.
>
>I note that in most of the Board/GNSO Council
>meetings - both parties mostly hear the views of
>individual members. There is not usually a
>discussion on a formal piece of GNSO
>Advice. One thing the GAC tends to do,
>after meetings between the Board and the GAC, is
>formulate its views as the formal GAC Communique
>that is assumed to represent a consensus of the
>GAC on a particular topic that was
>discussed. The Board then has an option to
>subsequently meet with the GAC to specifically
>go through the GAC Communiqué. I believe this
>will happen in Durban with respect to some
>points from their Beijing Communiqué.
>
>Regards,
>Bruce Tonkin
>Chair, Board Governance Committee
More information about the ALAC
mailing list