<html>
<body>
As a member of the PDP development team and as someone who has long
preached that the formal PDP should not be the only way to develop policy
(if it is not to be a picket-fence Consensus Policy or utilized the 2/3
rejection clause), I support this.<br><br>
Although perhaps this is a separate discussion, I would go further, and
put an onus on ICANN and the Board to discus substantive issues of
implementation with the GNSO and the community. The multi-year New gTLD
implementation and the STI in particular establish this precedent, and it
should be enshrined in the Bylaws.<br><br>
Alan (speaking on my own behalf)<br><br>
At 06/06/2013 11:29 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">All,<br>
<br>
In the rationale used in the BGC’s recommendation against the NCSG’s
Reconsideration Request, the BGC argues that:<br>
<br>
“There is no defined policy 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
Policy Development Process. Therefore, even if staff’s action here
was in direct contravention to the GNSO Council statement in a letter,
the Bylaws requirement for consultation does not apply…”<br><br>
Technically and legally, the BGC is correct. As much as this goes
against the very nature of the multi-stakeholder model (and frankly the
message ICANN delivers to the world), the ICANN Board/staff is free to
ignore the GNSO Council (and thus has no accountability for these
actions). This is true despite the fact that the Bylaws also
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.” Therefore, what the BGC is
telling us is that despite the fact that the Bylaws charges the GNSO with
developing and recommending substantive policies, it can ignore the GNSO
community at any time if the issue did not go through a formal PDP.<br>
<br>
I personally believe that is broken. Therefore, I would like for
the Council to consider recommending to the ICANN Board a change to the
Bylaws for an additional measure of accountability that at a minimum
would require some form of consultation if the GNSO Council (on behalf of
the GNSO Community) issues a recommendation or develops policy outside of
a formal PDP. As the former chair of the PDP Working Group that
helped revise the PDP process, I can tell you that we were encouraged by
the community to allow other mechanisms for developing policy outside of
formal PDPs. We spent countless hours on this very topic.
Yes, if it does not go through a formal PDP, it may not trigger a 2/3
Board vote to overturn the recommendation, but it was never our intention
that after going through that process, the Board to IGNORE the GNSO
Community. At a time when the community is trying to find ways to
develop policies outside of the stringent PDP, this is NOT an incentive
for doing that.<br><br>
Therefore, I would like to see the following changes made to the Bylaws
(no pride in authorship here…so feel free to suggest other words).
This is language that is VERY similar to the language the GAC has in the
Bylaws:<br>
<br>
<br><br>
<i><a name="XI-2.1k"></a>The substantive policies and recommendations of
the Generic Names Supporting Organization relating to generic top-level
domains shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and
adoption of policies, whether or not the policy development process as
set forth in Article X, section 6 were followed. In the event that the
ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the
GNSO policies or recommendations, it shall so inform the GNSO and state
the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. The GNSO and the
ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient
manner, 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.<br>
</i> <br>
If the multi-stakeholder model truly has any meaning, I view these
changes as non-controversial and essential to preserve what so many have
so long been advocating.<br><br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
<b>Jeffrey J. Neuman <br>
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs</b><br>
46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166<br>
<b>Office: </b>+1.571.434.5772 <b>Mobile: </b>+1.202.549.5079
<b>Fax: </b>+1.703.738.7965 <b>/</b>
<a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz">jeff.neuman@neustar.biz</a>
<b>/</b>
<a href="http://www.neustar.biz/" eudora="autourl">www.neustar.biz</a>
<br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>