[ALAC] Fwd: Revised Rationale for Rejection of NCSG Reconsideration Request & Proposed Motion for Durban Council Meeting

Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Sun Jun 30 21:42:08 UTC 2013


Um, here again, the age old problem of unrequited love.

Seems to me what the proposed resolution is really asking is for a revision
and extension of the meaning of the phrase 'developing and recommending' in
the quoted bylaw.

Maybe not a bad idea to put our hand in the pot as well.....

-Carlton




==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Alan Greenberg
<alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:

> In relation to my last note, I find this rather
> interesting, and something that the ALAC may want
> to think about. Specifically should we request a
> similar Bylaw revision for our formal advice.
> Perhaps this is something we want to put on the ALAC-Board meeting agenda.
>
> Alan
>
>
> >From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
> >To: "GNSO Council (council at gnso.icann.org)" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> >CC: 'Glen de Saint Géry' <Glen at icann.org>
> >Subject: [council] Revised Rationale for
> >Rejection of NCSG Reconsideration Request &
> >  Proposed Motion for Durban Council Meeting
> >Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 02:43:39 +0000
> >
> >Although I am sure that some on the Council will
> >still disagree with the new rationale posted at
> ><
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendation-ncsg-25jun13-en.pdf
> >
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendation-ncsg-25jun13-en.pdf
> ,
> >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 /
> ><mailto:jeff.neuman at neustar.biz>jeff.neuman at neustar.biz  /
> www.neustar.biz
> >
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>



More information about the ALAC mailing list