[council] GNSO Council Meeting - 13 June 2013 - Actionss arising from Item 6 (Reconsideration request ... )

Jonathan Robinson jrobinson at afilias.info
Sun Jun 16 10:21:50 UTC 2013



Following on from Item 6 at our June 13 meeting, Jeff has already circulated
and e-mail together with an attachment containing his notes for leading the


My understanding is that, through a combination of what was proposed to the
meeting and what was discussed in the meeting, the following course of
action is agreed:


1.       The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the Board
Governance Committee (copying the New gTLD Programme Committee).

2.       The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the ATRT2.

3.       The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the ICANN


The objective of each of the above 3 can be summarised as follows:


1.       The Board Governance Committee - Drafted by [Jeff].

a.       To highlight and describe the key concerns with output of the
committee i.e. with the rationalisation for the reconsideration decision.

b.      To make it clear that the desired outcome is to remove the current
rationalisation from the record (and not to overturn the outcome of the

c.       To recognise that the Council's intervention in these processes is
for very specific reasons and because of the perceived potential impact on
the GNSO and indeed the MS Model.

2.       The ATRT2 - Drafted by [Volunteer].

a.       To highlight concerns with the reconsideration process as a
mechanism for ensuring accountability and transparency.

b.      To not propose a specific remedy but rather to leave that to the

3.       The ICANN Board - Drafted by [Jonathan].

a.       To summarise and refer to both 1 & 2 above

b.      To highlight on-going concerns about the issue of accountability for
actions (implementation or policy) which are not in agreement with GNSO
policy or policy advice.

c.       To propose solutions such as:

Agreement to effectively communicate with the GNSO in the event that a
decision goes against such policy or policy advice 
(something we have already agreed to on the back of our Beijing / recent

Possible change/s to the ICANN bylaws


That summarises my understanding.  I look forward to receiving your
comments; supporting, not supporting or refining the above points.


N.B. I have suggested Jeff drafts 1, someone volunteers to draft 2 and I
draft 3.











-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20130616/9605a68d/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list