[council] IGO/RC motion

[Alan Greenberg]

At 23/07/2014 03:14 PM, Avri Doria wrote:


>Hi,
>
>On 23-Jul-14 15:04, john at crediblecontext.com wrote:
> > In as much as the motion and its intended action (to take another look
> > at the protections given ICO and INGOs in the new gTLD program) is as
> > much politics as policy, I don't think delaying the discussion and vote
> > enhances likelihood of passage.  There are voices in the BC who question
> > why we are willing to re-open a decision that was unanimously closed.
> >
>
>
>For clarity sake:
>
>By "decision that was unanimously closed." do you mean the PDP
>recommendations?
>
>Also, have any new arguments have been offered, or is it just because
>the GAC disagrees with our recommendations.  Something which should not
>come as a surprise since they don't even agree with our standing to make
>recommendations on this topic.
>
>Fro a process perspective, I think in this case we reopen if we enough
>of the council agrees that we would like to see our recommendations
>amended as suggested by the Board.

I think that an argument can be made that the WG did not thoroughly 
discuss on its merits, the RC issue on the table, nod did it ever 
consider  what I understand to be the request on the IGO acronyms.

We continually say that the GNSO Council should not be the policy 
making body, but WG are where the substantive discussions should take 
place. Given that, I do not agree that we should vet the detailed 
proposal before passing it to the WG. We should pass it to them with 
no comment and let them have the in depth conversations on the 
merits. Then the Council can agree or disagree with the 
recommendations they make (either way), along with their rationale.

BTW, I earlier, you mentioned that an NCSG position was that whatever 
we give IGOs, we should give INGOs. The ALAC was an early advocate of 
INGO protections and I think it would likely agree with you in this 
case. I would support incorporating that into anything we pass to the WG.

Alan