[council] Re: Request to the GNSO Council

[Stéphane Van Gelder]

Hi Amadeu,

Thanks for your request. Copying the Council for their information.

On your requests B and C, I think these are more staff issues than Council issues. As staff is also subscribed to the Council list, they will get this copy of your message so it's probably best to let them answer you directly (possible copying the Council as a courtesy).

On your request D, I will let Councillors react before attempting to identify a potential way forward.

Thanks,

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CORE-AmendingDigitalArchery.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 90409 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20120611/ccec1771/CORE-AmendingDigitalArchery.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------


Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Head of Domain Operations
Group NBT

Le 11 juin 2012 à 14:05, Amadeu Abril I Abril a écrit :

> Hi Stéphaone,
> 
> As Chair of the GNSO Countil, CORE has a (hsort) number of requests for you ,-)
> 
> A) Could you please forward the attached document to the Council list? Yes, it is about digital archery, and how to amend the current situation
> 
> B) There has been a number of proposals and position papers being circulated. In the lack of Public Comment forum and the casual attitude of the ICANN Board and staff regarding the communications they receive, could the Councilconsider opening a public repository on this issue in its website? Lots of things are being circulate by mail, but nobody has the clear picture "who stand for what", and why
> 
> C) Could the gNSO Council request from ICANN staff to accommodate a two-hours slot during the Prague meeting fro discussing this issue? On Monday or Wednesday. Individual participants should not manage the schedule, but the Council is the representative of a large portion of the stakeholders. This is not related only to the fact that the's impranve, but also to the fact that it has been adopted without any input from the GNSO and even without , as mentioned, a Public Comment period (and nobody will dispute that this is not purely a procedural point: whether to batch, and how the applications has clear impact on a very large portion of stakeholders, well beyond the applicants).
> 
> D) We would also request that the Council looks at how this decision has been taken. The Board voted on a proposal from management, which is perfectly OK. Prior to that proposal, it was unavailable for any discussion. Once the proposal made, no Public Comment period was allocated. Once voted, the Board claims to be unable to discuss, or even listen any argument related to it because... ti was based on a proposal from management. So it should be discussed with management (which, indeed, is not available either for such thing, as.... it ahs been voted by the Baord ;-). No matter whether we might believe the proposal and the reslution are good or not, the procedure seems a bit odd, and the claim that Board cannot review, or even listen to opinions about, a decision they took simply because it was proposed by management, deserves some consideration within our decision-making process.
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Amadeu Abril i Abril
> Chief Policy Advisor
> CORE Internet Council of Registrars
> http.//coenic.org
> Amadeu.Abril at corenic.org
> 
> <CORE-AmendingDigitalArchery.pdf>