<div>Jonathan, Amr:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As you, Jonathan, were elected by the Registries and you, Amr, by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, your names, like mine and Gabi's, are already, technically, on the request for reconsideration. If Councillors from the Registrars, ISPC or IPC or even our NomComm appointed colleagues were to want the Council to consider it, that would be pushing the issue further along and I would support. But I think such an initiative ought to come from a Councillor whose "name" is not already on the request.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Berard</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="threadBlockQuote" style="border-left: 2px solid #C2C2C2; padding-left: 3px; margin-left: 4px;">--------- Original Message ---------
<div>Subject: [council] RE: [council] Letter to Fadi Chehadé and Stephen Crocker August 26th, 2014<br />From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info><br />Date: 8/31/14 10:15 am<br />To: "'Amr Elsadr'" <aelsadr@egyptig.org>, "'GNSO Council List'" <council@gnso.icann.org><br /><br /><br /> Thanks Amr,<br /> <br /> Good point and good question and I'd welcome a discussion in and around the<br /> issues at some point.<br /> <br /> Key point is that whenever I communicate with the authority of Council (by<br /> motion or consensus) I typically write:<br /> <br /> A. As Chair<br /> B. For and on behalf of the Council<br /> <br /> In this case, I was asked if I would sign onto the letter as myself, not on<br /> behalf of the Council.<br /> Now, clearly I am chair and cannot expect my comments to be seen completely<br /> independent of the GNSO/Council.<br /> <br /> In this (rare) case, I made a judgement call that I could sign off on it, in<br /> part because there was significant support from the SG & Constituency<br /> leadership colleagues from the GNSO.<br /> <br /> If you see the list of names at the end, it is a list of names and not for<br /> and on behalf of the SGs & Constituencies in each case.<br /> <br /> Hope that helps clarify.<br /> <br /> <br /> Jonathan<br /> <br /> -----Original Message-----<br /> From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org] <br /> Sent: 31 August 2014 15:17<br /> To: GNSO Council List<br /> Subject: [council] Letter to Fadi Chehadé and Stephen Crocker August 26th,<br /> 2014<br /> <br /> <br /> Hi,<br /> <br /> Ive been wondering about this letter for a couple of days now<br /> (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/cooper-et-al-to-chehad<br /> e-et-al-26aug14-en.pdf), and am asking Jonathan and everyone else what the<br /> procedure is for the GNSO (or GNSO Council) to sign off on it.<br /> <br /> I would imagine that a motion and a vote would be necessary, and I imagine<br /> that it would have been received positively by the majority of Councillors,<br /> but I dont recall a discussion taking place. Im thinking there was either<br /> a discussion Ive completely overlooked, or a procedural issue Im not aware<br /> of.<br /> <br /> To be honest, I wasnt very much in favour of having the NCSG sign off on<br /> this letter when it was discussed at the stakeholder group level (and I<br /> dont believe the NCSG did actually sign off on it despite being listed as a<br /> signatory). That is not to say that I am particularly happy with the way the<br /> Accountability Process is moving forward, but would have preferred if there<br /> was a more concrete reason to request a delay in the process than to simply<br /> formulate questions. Speaking for myself, I think the reconsideration<br /> request filed<br /> (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/request-bc-rysg-ncsg-29aug14-en<br /> .pdf) served this purpose more eloquently.<br /> <br /> I only mention my personal preference in the substantive merits of the<br /> letter to clarify my personal thoughts, but my question is a process<br /> question irrespective of the actual contents of the letter.<br /> <br /> I would appreciate any and all thoughts on this.<br /> <br /> Thanks.<br /> <br /> Amr<br /> <br /> </div>
</blockquote>