[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