[council] RE: BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello All,

Thank you for the letter from the GNSO Council regarding Reconsideration 
Request 13-3.

Just an update.  

The Board Governance Committee had an extensive discussion around this topic in 
its meeting today.    Staff will be reviewing the text of the rationale 
following the discussion.  The current plan is for the Board Governance 
Committee to meet again on 25 June 2013 to review the rationale.

In terms of a discussion in Durban, I suggest we have the discussion around 
GNSO advice, and involvement of the GNSO in the implementation of policies, 
outside of the context of the wording of the rationale.  I.e. I think we should 
discuss this at a broader level - ie what are the lessons learned from this 
case - rather than debate the case itself.

The Board Governance Committee is also having discussions about the broader 
topic and would welcome further discussions in Durban.   It is also a useful 
topic for the Board as a whole, and certainly has been a topic of the past two 
public ICANN meetings.

As I see it, we have a detailed process in the bylaws that sets out how the 
GNSO develops policy recommendations, and how the Board approves those 
recommendations to form ICANN policy.    The GNSO is free to create policy 
recommendations using the PDP on any of the new gTLD topics - including the 
trademark clearinghouse.   These policy recommendations may change current 
policies, or current implementations of policies (e.g. . various implementation 
details of the transfers policy).

As Jeff and others have pointed out, the bylaws are less clear on how the Board 
and staff should treat advice from the GNSO Council on implementations of ICANN 
policies etc.   Presently this is primarily treated via the various public 
comment forums but there is no special standing for the GNSO in those forums, 
and through the various meetings between the Board and the GNSO Council at its 
public meetings.   There is no defined process at this point however.   In 
contrast the bylaws do set out formal processes for responding to GAC advice 
which frequently focus on implementation of policies.

I note that in most of the Board/GNSO Council meetings - both parties mostly 
hear the views of individual members.   There is not usually a discussion on a 
formal piece of GNSO Advice.      One thing the GAC tends to do, after meetings 
between the Board and the GAC, is formulate its views as the formal GAC 
Communique that is assumed to represent a consensus of the GAC on a particular 
topic that was discussed.   The Board then has an option to subsequently meet 
with the GAC to specifically go through the GAC Communiqué.   I believe this 
will happen in Durban with respect to some points from their Beijing Communiqué.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
Chair, Board Governance Committee