[council] FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Update from Chris Disspain on the IGO protections issue

[James M. Bladel]

Thanks, Mary, for pulling this material together.  It is good to have it
at the ready as we prepare for the Board response that Chris mentioned in
his letter.

But it¹s worth noting that we shouldn¹t assume the GNSO Council will
invoke this process.  Depending upon how the Board responds, we may seek
to modify our original recommendations, or let them stand, or pursue some
other course of action.

Thanks‹

J.



On 8/22/16, 12:43 , "owner-council at gnso.icann.org on behalf of Mary Wong"
<owner-council at gnso.icann.org on behalf of mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:

>
>Hello again Julf and everyone,
>
>For your convenience here are the relevant excerpts from the ICANN Bylaws
>describing the applicable processes in the event that the Board decides
>not to follow either GAC advice or GNSO policy recommendations.
>
>For the GAC, the relevant process is detailed in Article XI, Section 2 as
>follows:
>- ³The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy
>matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and
>adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to
>take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory
>Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons
>why it decided not to follow that advice. The Governmental Advisory
>Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a
>timely and efficient manner, 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 Governmental Advisory Committee advice
>was not followed, and such statement will be without prejudice to the
>rights or obligations of Governmental Advisory Committee members with
>regard to public policy issues falling within their responsibilities.²
>
>For the GNSO, the relevant process is detailed in Annex A, Section 9 as
>follows:
>- ³Any PDP Recommendations approved by a GNSO Supermajority Vote shall be
>adopted by the Board unless, by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of
>the Board, the Board determines that such policy is not in the best
>interests of the ICANN community or ICANN Š
>- In the event that the Board determines Š that the policy recommended Š
>is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN (the
>Corporation), the Board shall (i) articulate the reasons for its
>determination in a report to the Council (the "Board Statement"); and
>(ii) submit the Board Statement to the Council.
>- The Council shall review the Board Statement for discussion with the
>Board as soon as feasible after the Council's receipt of the Board
>Statement. The Board shall determine the method (e.g., by teleconference,
>e-mail, or otherwise) by which the Council and Board will discuss the
>Board Statement.
>- At the conclusion of the Council and Board discussions, the Council
>shall meet to affirm or modify its recommendation, and communicate that
>conclusion (the "Supplemental Recommendation") to the Board, including an
>explanation for the then-current recommendation. In the event that the
>Council is able to reach a GNSO Supermajority Vote on the Supplemental
>Recommendation, the Board shall adopt the recommendation unless more than
>two-thirds (2/3) of the Board determines that such policy is not in the
>interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. For any Supplemental
>Recommendation approved by less than a GNSO Supermajority Vote, a
>majority vote of the Board shall be sufficient to determine that the
>policy in the Supplemental Recommendation is not in the best interest of
>the ICANN community or ICANN.²
>
>Cheers
>Mary
>
>On 8/22/16, 18:52, "owner-council at gnso.icann.org on behalf of Johan
>Helsingius" <owner-council at gnso.icann.org on behalf of julf at julf.com>
>wrote:
>
>    
>    Hi, Mary,
>    
>    Thanks for the useful information!
>    
>    > For instance, the Bylaws provide for certain mechanisms if
>    > the Board rejects GAC advice on the one hand, and other
>    > mechanisms if on the other hand the Board rejects GNSO
>    > policy recommendations.
>    
>    I guess my question was really about those mechanisms in
>    the case of the latter alternative.
>    
>    	Julf
>    
>    
>
>