Re: [council] Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A message from the Co-Chairs

["Edward Morris" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Julf,

It warms my heart to see another GNSO Councillor attentive to our Charter and 
intent on using its provisions to tackle problems like this one.




Sent from my iPhone
> On 21 Feb 2016, at 10:15, Johan Helsingius <julf@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
>> It is fortunate that the Board provided this input before we published
>> the report, since it enables us to assess the potential consequences of
>> a Board disagreement later in the process.
> 
> Isn't the board opinion simply just that - an opinion (maybe
> belonging in with the minority statements)

Well, the Board submitted its statement past the deadline for the submission of 
Minority Statements. I'd be in favour of waiving the deadline so their 
statement could be included. Reasonable, considering the circumstances.  I'm 
not sure how others feel.




> There is of course the possibility that they invoke the magic
> phrase "global public interest", but that requires 2/3 majority
> of the board, and leads to a formal dialogue with the CCWG. Am
> I correct in assuming any amendments would then go back to the
> chartering organisations for approval one more time?
>    Julf
> 
> 

Yes, sir, you are 100 per cent correct!

After the dialogue, a dialogue that only ensues if 2/3 of the board concludes 
the proposal is against the global public interest, but prior to submitting a 
modified recommendation to the Board, the CCWG is required to go back to the 
chartering organisations for approval.

This is what should be happening. The Supplemental Report should already have 
been issued under the timetable that was announced. We in the chartering 
organizations should be considering the proposal this weekend. Instead our own 
schedules have been severely disrupted.

A rule based organization or an organization ruled by personality, with  strict 
adherence to rules only for some but not for others. That really is what is at 
question here. What are we and, if the later, is ICANN really ready for 
independence? Recent behaviour of this group suggests it is not.

Thanks, Julf, for looking at the Charter and asking questions that suggest that 
you, like I, see it as a document whose provisions should be followed and would 
lead to a final solution on this matter.

Best,

Ed Morris




>