[council] RE: [council] Letter to Fadi Chehadé and Stephen Crocker August 26th, 2014

[Jonathan Robinson]

Thanks Amr,

Good point and good question and I'd welcome a discussion in and around the
issues at some point.

Key point is that whenever I communicate with the authority of Council (by
motion or consensus) I typically write:

A. As Chair
B. For and on behalf of the Council

In this case, I was asked if I would sign onto the letter as myself, not on
behalf of the Council.
Now, clearly I am chair and cannot expect my comments to be seen completely
independent of the GNSO/Council.

In this (rare) case, I made a judgement call that I could sign off on it, in
part because there was significant support from the SG & Constituency
leadership colleagues from the GNSO.

If you see the list of names at the end, it is a list of names and not for
and on behalf of the SGs & Constituencies in each case.

Hope that helps clarify.


Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org] 
Sent: 31 August 2014 15:17
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] Letter to Fadi Chehadé and Stephen Crocker August 26th,
2014


Hi,

I’ve been wondering about this letter for a couple of days now
(https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/cooper-et-al-to-chehad
e-et-al-26aug14-en.pdf), and am asking Jonathan and everyone else what the
procedure is for the GNSO (or GNSO Council) to sign off on it.

I would imagine that a motion and a vote would be necessary, and I imagine
that it would have been received positively by the majority of Councillors,
but I don’t recall a discussion taking place. I’m thinking there was either
a discussion I’ve completely overlooked, or a procedural issue I’m not aware
of.

To be honest, I wasn’t very much in favour of having the NCSG sign off on
this letter when it was discussed at the stakeholder group level (and I
don’t believe the NCSG did actually sign off on it despite being listed as a
signatory). That is not to say that I am particularly happy with the way the
Accountability Process is moving forward, but would have preferred if there
was a more concrete reason to request a delay in the process than to simply
formulate questions. Speaking for myself, I think the reconsideration
request filed
(https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/request-bc-rysg-ncsg-29aug14-en
.pdf) served this purpose more eloquently.

I only mention my personal preference in the substantive merits of the
letter to clarify my personal thoughts, but my question is a process
question irrespective of the actual contents of the letter.

I would appreciate any and all thoughts on this.

Thanks.

Amr