[council] Revised Rationale for Rejection of NCSG Reconsideration Request & Proposed Motion for Durban Council Meeting

[Jonathan Robinson]

Thanks Jeff,

 

We are often focussed on dealing with problems and issues where they arise
or may arise.  Here, an issue has been identified and dealt with
(apparently) satisfactorily by the BGC.

 

I’d like to seek Council support to rapidly respond to the BGC with a
follow-up acknowledging their responsiveness in this case by dealing with
issues highlighted in my/our previous letter.

 

Please indicate support for this.

 

Jonathan

 

From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us] 
Sent: 28 June 2013 03:44
To: GNSO Council (council at gnso.icann.org)
Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry'
Subject: [council] Revised Rationale for Rejection of NCSG Reconsideration
Request & Proposed Motion for Durban Council Meeting

 

Although I am sure that some on the Council will still disagree with the new
rationale posted at
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendati
on-ncsg-25jun13-en.pdf, I believe the rationale is much more consistent
with, and recognizes, the value of the multi-stakeholder model.  The tone
has been softened considerably and is much more respectful, in my opinion.
In addition, the rationale upon my quick read seems to be technically
correct.  I am grateful to the Board Governance Committee for having taken
some of our comments very seriously and for making the appropriate changes
to the rationale.

 

The one item I would still like to see addressed by the Council (other than
the Policy v. Implementation discussions within the GNSO Working Group
process) is formalizing the requirement through a proposed Bylaws Amendment
requiring consultation of the GNSO if the Board proposes to take an action
that is inconsistent with a policy or statement of the GNSO.  I intend to
draft that motion for the Council’s consideration in Durban.

 

To give all of the constituencies ample time to review the motion prior to
Durban, although I am sure some will seek to defer the motion, claiming
insufficient time to review, I am attaching this proposed resolution for
consideration in Durban.  I am happy to take comments, edits or suggestions:

 

WHEREAS, the ICANN Bylaws currently 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;

WHEREAS, the Board Governance Committee has recognized in Reconsideration
Request 13-3 that “As of now, there is no defined policy or 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 PDP”; and

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council believes that such a defined policy or process is
now needed.

RESOLVED: The GNSO Council recommends that the ICANN Bylaws be amended to
include language requiring a formal consultation process in the event that
the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with
GNSO policies or recommendations.  Such process shall require the ICANN
Board to state the reasons why it decided not to follow GNSO recommendations
or policies, and be followed in a timely manner, with a consultation in
which the GNSO and the ICANN Board attempt in good faith 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.  

 

FURTHER RESOLVED that the GNSO recommends the above to apply whether or not
the policy development process as set forth in Article X, section 6 were
followed.

 

 

 

 

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 /
<mailto:jeff.neuman at neustar.biz> jeff.neuman at neustar.biz  /
<http://www.neustar.biz/> www.neustar.biz 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20130628/f8141321/attachment.html>