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

Sun Jun 30 21:46:45 UTC 2013

Re, the motion, I think there should be some thought given to exceptions and defining the exceptions.

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 1, 2013, at 9:42 AM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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)
> _______________________________________________
> 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)