Re: [council] Draft Statement for Public Forum

[Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>]

This looks good to me. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 10, 2013, at 11:19 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Some revisions: 
>  
> The GNSO Council would like to remind the ICANN staff and Board that it is 
> the only entity charged with policy development and providing recommendations 
> to the Board on substantive policies relating to generic top level domains. 
> The GNSO Council recently provided advice in response to a letter from the 
> CEO to the effect that an issue being considered was a matter of policy, 
> rather than implementation. It was Staff’s view that the issue was 
> implementation and not policy, and accordingly it was the Staff’s decision to 
> proceed with implementation of what the majority of the Council believed was 
> policy. It is the Council’s firmly held view that when there is not an 
> agreement on whether or not such an item is policy, as in this case, that the 
> Staff and/or the ICANN Board must refer back to the Council before proceeding 
> further.
> 
> Indeed, as a general point, it is the Council’s view that should it provide 
> policy advice to the Staff and/or the Board in the future, then in the event 
> that Staff and/or Board seek to act in a manner that is not consistent with 
> the Council’s advice, then the Staff and/or Board must consult with the GNSO 
> Council, explain the rationale behind its decision, and allow the Council, at 
> a minimum, to respond to the Staff or Board’s decision.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
> 
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 6:54 PM
> To: GNSO Council List
> Subject: [council] Draft Statement for Public Forum
>  
> Draft Statement for Public Forum:
> 
> The GNSO Council recently provided advice in response to a letter from the 
> CEO to the effect that an issue being considered was a matter of policy, 
> rather than implementation. It was Staff’s view that the issue was 
> implementation and not policy, and accordingly it was the Staff’s decision to 
> proceed with the first steps of implementation. It is the Council’s firmly 
> held view that when there is not an agreement on whether or not such an item 
> is policy, as in this case, that the Staff must refer back to the Council 
> before proceeding further.
> 
> Indeed, as a general point, it is the Council’s view that should it provide 
> policy advice to the Staff and/or the Board in the future, then in the event 
> that Staff and/or Board seek to act adverse to the Council’s advice, they 
> should certainly not do so without further reference back to the Council.