[council] Revised Rationale for Rejection of NCSG Reconsideration Request & Proposed Motion for Durban Council Meeting

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Although I am sure that some on the Council will still disagree with the new 
rationale posted at 
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendation-ncsg-25jun13-en.pdf,
 I believe the rationale is much more consistent with, and recognizes, the 
value of the multi-stakeholder model.  The tone has been softened considerably 
and is much more respectful, in my opinion.  In addition, the rationale upon my 
quick read seems to be technically correct.  I am grateful to the Board 
Governance Committee for having taken some of our comments very seriously and 
for making the appropriate changes to the rationale.

The one item I would still like to see addressed by the Council (other than the 
Policy v. Implementation discussions within the GNSO Working Group process) is 
formalizing the requirement through a proposed Bylaws Amendment requiring 
consultation of the GNSO if the Board proposes to take an action that is 
inconsistent with a policy or statement of the GNSO.  I intend to draft that 
motion for the Council's consideration in Durban.

To give all of the constituencies ample time to review the motion prior to 
Durban, although I am sure some will seek to defer the motion, claiming 
insufficient time to review, I am attaching this proposed resolution for 
consideration in Durban.  I am happy to take comments, edits or suggestions:


WHEREAS, the ICANN Bylaws currently state:  There shall be a policy-development 
body known as the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which shall be 
responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive 
policies relating to generic top-level domains;

WHEREAS, the Board Governance Committee has recognized in Reconsideration 
Request 13-3 that "As of now, there is no defined policy or process within 
ICANN that requires Board or staff consultation with the GNSO Council if the 
Board or staff is acting in contravention to a statement made by the GNSO 
Council outside of the PDP"; and

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council believes that such a defined policy or process is now 
needed.
RESOLVED: The GNSO Council recommends that the ICANN Bylaws be amended to 
include language requiring a formal consultation process in the event that the 
ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with GNSO 
policies or recommendations.  Such process shall require the ICANN Board to 
state the reasons why it decided not to follow GNSO recommendations or 
policies, and be followed in a timely manner, with a consultation in which the 
GNSO and the ICANN Board attempt in good faith to find a mutually acceptable 
solution.  If no such solution can be found, the ICANN Board will state in its 
final decision the reasons why the GNSO recommendations or policies were not 
followed.

FURTHER RESOLVED that the GNSO recommends the above to apply whether or not the 
policy development process as set forth in Article X, section 6 were followed.




Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / 
jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>  / 
www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>