[council] RE: BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3

[Jonathan Robinson]

Bruce,

Many thanks for this update and constructive, forward looking thoughts.  

Please note my previous email to the Council laying out some thoughts for
our interaction with the board in Durban,
I suspect we can marry the thinking and approaches in my note to the Council
with what you have laid out below.

If we can continue with this type of approach, I am optimistic about our
ability to effectively work within the existing model as well as to develop
and modify it where necessary.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au] 
Sent: 19 June 2013 01:36
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] RE: BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3


Hello All,

Thank you for the letter from the GNSO Council regarding Reconsideration
Request 13-3.

Just an update.  

The Board Governance Committee had an extensive discussion around this topic
in its meeting today.    Staff will be reviewing the text of the rationale
following the discussion.  The current plan is for the Board Governance
Committee to meet again on 25 June 2013 to review the rationale.

In terms of a discussion in Durban, I suggest we have the discussion around
GNSO advice, and involvement of the GNSO in the implementation of policies,
outside of the context of the wording of the rationale.  I.e. I think we
should discuss this at a broader level - ie what are the lessons learned
from this case - rather than debate the case itself.

The Board Governance Committee is also having discussions about the broader
topic and would welcome further discussions in Durban.   It is also a useful
topic for the Board as a whole, and certainly has been a topic of the past
two public ICANN meetings.

As I see it, we have a detailed process in the bylaws that sets out how the
GNSO develops policy recommendations, and how the Board approves those
recommendations to form ICANN policy.    The GNSO is free to create policy
recommendations using the PDP on any of the new gTLD topics - including the
trademark clearinghouse.   These policy recommendations may change current
policies, or current implementations of policies (e.g. . various
implementation details of the transfers policy).

As Jeff and others have pointed out, the bylaws are less clear on how the
Board and staff should treat advice from the GNSO Council on implementations
of ICANN policies etc.   Presently this is primarily treated via the various
public comment forums but there is no special standing for the GNSO in those
forums, and through the various meetings between the Board and the GNSO
Council at its public meetings.   There is no defined process at this point
however.   In contrast the bylaws do set out formal processes for responding
to GAC advice which frequently focus on implementation of policies.

I note that in most of the Board/GNSO Council meetings - both parties mostly
hear the views of individual members.   There is not usually a discussion on
a formal piece of GNSO Advice.      One thing the GAC tends to do, after
meetings between the Board and the GAC, is formulate its views as the formal
GAC Communique that is assumed to represent a consensus of the GAC on a
particular topic that was discussed.   The Board then has an option to
subsequently meet with the GAC to specifically go through the GAC
Communiqué.   I believe this will happen in Durban with respect to some
points from their Beijing Communiqué.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
Chair, Board Governance Committee