[council] Draft Statement for Public Forum

[VOLKER GREIMANN]

I support in general, but for one small nit:

Did not the paper from ICANN staff agree that the 50+ abused terms were likely policy and still elided to implement it? 
I feel that this is even more problematic than the issue of a dispute if an issue is implementation or policy.

Volker


On 2013-04-11, at 11:06 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> 
> 
> Has my full support.
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org on behalf of Wendy Seltzer
> Sent: Thu 4/11/2013 1:38 AM
> To: Jonathan Robinson
> Cc: GNSO Council List
> Subject: Re: [council] Draft Statement for Public Forum
> 
> 
> Agree. Thanks Jonathan and Jeff.
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> On 04/10/2013 05:23 PM, Mason Cole wrote:
>> This looks good to me. 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Apr 10, 2013, at 11:19 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us> wrote:
>> 
>>> Some revisions: 
>>> 
>>> The GNSO Council would like to remind the ICANN staff and Board that it is the only entity charged with policy development and providing recommendations to the Board on substantive policies relating to generic top level domains. The GNSO Council recently provided advice in response to a letter from the CEO to the effect that an issue being considered was a matter of policy, rather than implementation. It was Staff's view that the issue was implementation and not policy, and accordingly it was the Staff's decision to proceed with implementation of what the majority of the Council believed was policy. It is the Council's firmly held view that when there is not an agreement on whether or not such an item is policy, as in this case, that the Staff and/or the ICANN Board must refer back to the Council before proceeding further.
>>> 
>>> Indeed, as a general point, it is the Council's view that should it provide policy advice to the Staff and/or the Board in the future, then in the event that Staff and/or Board seek to act in a manner that is not consistent with the Council's advice, then the Staff and/or Board must consult with the GNSO Council, explain the rationale behind its decision, and allow the Council, at a minimum, to respond to the Staff or Board's decision.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
>>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 6:54 PM
>>> To: GNSO Council List
>>> Subject: [council] Draft Statement for Public Forum
>>> 
>>> Draft Statement for Public Forum:
>>> 
>>> The GNSO Council recently provided advice in response to a letter from the CEO to the effect that an issue being considered was a matter of policy, rather than implementation. It was Staff's view that the issue was implementation and not policy, and accordingly it was the Staff's decision to proceed with the first steps of implementation. It is the Council's firmly held view that when there is not an agreement on whether or not such an item is policy, as in this case, that the Staff must refer back to the Council before proceeding further.
>>> 
>>> Indeed, as a general point, it is the Council's view that should it provide policy advice to the Staff and/or the Board in the future, then in the event that Staff and/or Board seek to act adverse to the Council's advice, they should certainly not do so without further reference back to the Council.
>> 
> 
>