<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Revised Motion on ICANN Bylaw Recoomendation
- To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Revised Motion on ICANN Bylaw Recoomendation
- From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:58:44 +0200
- Cc: "GNSO Council (council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 'Glen de Saint Géry' <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=key-systems.net; h=content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:references:subject :subject:to:mime-version:user-agent:from:from:date:date :message-id; s=dkim; t=1372424325; x=1373288325; bh=T7bnMzGbEvfd nSxSQdUyehdXchX2R4XHrRpiUMFQ6KI=; b=VTbYfrtpDGROvuFFw8UvwSd+8ROs AfpWz4XhEw7RAVppIpBJ7MCtJHqpspHsH4pFB3dmds7cdAhelAO8XkQy7glbLGYI c5VRcWpz+QZEjVOv6Z36H087repJmNgKBZYOyqUEkAdXpRs6M+LcmSq2OLAO8wgg W/c3AfTTpKommbE=
- In-reply-to: <AA2CD321EE9B1F4D99ECFC1A2B0342320C2762@stntexmb12.cis.neustar.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <AA2CD321EE9B1F4D99ECFC1A2B0342320C2762@stntexmb12.cis.neustar.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
Dear Jeff,
I believe this motion sends a strong signal regarding the role of the
GNSO and will help ensure that the GNSO council will be taken into
account in future policy decisions. I therefore second this motion.
Best,
Volker Greimann
All,
Overnight I got some fantastic comments from several people about the
motion, so I have made a couple of changes. Here is the new motion,
with the changed parts in red. Basically I added a second sentence to
the definition of the GNSO recognizing the role that the GNSO has with
respect to providing advice on implementation of policies relating to
generic TLDs. What that process is and how to delineate whether
something is policy or implementation is being worked on by the Policy
v. implementation Working Group we have set up, but as the BGC
recognizes, the Board should be coming to the GNSO community for
advice on implementation issues as well as policy issues.
Again, to be clear, all this is saying is that IF the GNSO issues
advice AND the Board acts inconsistent with that advice, the only
thing the Board should do is meet with the GNSO in good faith, offer
its reasons, and attempt to work out a solution. That's it. Seems
like a no-brainer to me.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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:/
//
/a) add a second sentence to Article X, Section 1 such that Section 1
would now read: "/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. The GNSO
is also responsible for providing advice to the ICANN Board on the
implementation of policies relating to generic top-level domains."
//
/b) 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 advice. Such process shall require the ICANN
Board to state the reasons why it decided not to follow GNSO advice,
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 advice
was 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*
*From:*owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Neuman, Jeff
*Sent:* Thursday, June 27, 2013 10:44 PM
*To:* GNSO Council (council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
*Cc:* 'Glen de Saint Géry'
*Subject:* [council] Revised Rationale for Rejection of NCSG
Reconsideration Request & Proposed Motion for Durban Council Meeting
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/>
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede
Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per
E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this
email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the
author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|