[council] Discussion Item: Changes to ICANN Bylaws

Volker Greimann vgreimann at key-Systems.net
Mon Jun 10 11:27:13 UTC 2013

I would also support such a motion. The suggested language keeps the 
door for alternative processes open while shutting the door for a 
complete bypass without accountability.



> All,
> In the rationale used in the BGC's recommendation against the NCSG's 
> Reconsideration Request, the BGC argues that:
> "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..."
> 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.
> 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.
> 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:
> /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./
> 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.
> Thanks.
> *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*/*jeff.neuman at neustar.biz 
> <mailto:jeff.neuman at neustar.biz> */*www.neustar.biz 
> <http://www.neustar.biz/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20130610/318c5a03/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list