[council] Re: [council] RE: [council] Letter to Fadi Chehadé and Stephen Crocker August 26th, 2014
aelsadr at egyptig.org
Sun Aug 31 20:30:44 UTC 2014
I’m not sure I fully understand what it is you are suggesting (apologies on my part for that), but to clarify my question in case I wasn’t too clear; I was asking about the letter sent to Fadi and Steve, which I believe was drafted and discussed on the SO/AC Leadership list. My question was not about the Reconsideration Request, which as you pointed out, was submitted by the Business Constituency, the NCSG and the Registries. I don’t see any reason that suggests that submitting the RR equates to signing the letter. Furthermore, I don’t believe it sheds much light on the process that would be required in order for the letter to be signed on behalf of the Council. Again…, I may have just misunderstood what you were trying to convey.
Personally however, I find Jonathan’s take on this to be understandable. Although I have to say that the general perception I have personally observed amongst some is that this letter wasn’t so much one submitted by individuals in their personal capacities, but rather by individuals representing their stakeholder groups, constituencies, SOs and ACs. That was my personal perception as well (but thanks for the clarification, Jonathan). From what I’ve seen, it wasn’t the letter being published on the ICANN correspondence page so much that led to this perception as much as this CircleID blog: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140828_icann_community_issues_letter_questioning_icann_accountability/
On Aug 31, 2014, at 9:56 PM, john at crediblecontext.com wrote:
> Jonathan, Amr:
> As you, Jonathan, were elected by the Registries and you, Amr, by the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, your names, like mine and Gabi's, are already, technically, on the request for reconsideration. If Councillors from the Registrars, ISPC or IPC or even our NomComm appointed colleagues were to want the Council to consider it, that would be pushing the issue further along and I would support. But I think such an initiative ought to come from a Councillor whose "name" is not already on the request.
> --------- Original Message ---------
> Subject: [council] RE: [council] Letter to Fadi Chehadé and Stephen Crocker August 26th, 2014
> From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info>
> Date: 8/31/14 10:15 am
> To: "'Amr Elsadr'" <aelsadr at egyptig.org>, "'GNSO Council List'" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 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.
> -----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,
> Ive been wondering about this letter for a couple of days now
> 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 dont recall a discussion taking place. Im thinking there was either
> a discussion Ive completely overlooked, or a procedural issue Im not aware
> To be honest, I wasnt very much in favour of having the NCSG sign off on
> this letter when it was discussed at the stakeholder group level (and I
> dont 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
> .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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the council