RE: [council] Draft Statement for Public Forum
If you go with some variation of Jeff's version, the word "it" in the first sentence should be canged to "the GNSO" or "the GNSO COuncil". as it stands it refers back to the previous noun which is the Board. Alan At 10/04/2013 11:19 AM, Neuman, Jeff 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 AffairsFrom: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jonathan RobinsonSent: 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.
|