Re: [council] Draft Statement for Public Forum

[VOLKER GREIMANN <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I support in general, but for one small nit:

Did not the paper from ICANN staff agree that the 50+ abused terms were likely 
policy and still elided to implement it? 
I feel that this is even more problematic than the issue of a dispute if an 
issue is implementation or policy.

Volker


On 2013-04-11, at 11:06 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" 
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 
> Has my full support.
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Wendy Seltzer
> Sent: Thu 4/11/2013 1:38 AM
> To: Jonathan Robinson
> Cc: GNSO Council List
> Subject: Re: [council] Draft Statement for Public Forum
> 
> 
> Agree. Thanks Jonathan and Jeff.
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> On 04/10/2013 05:23 PM, Mason Cole wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
> 
>