[council] RE: Revised Motion on ICANN Bylaw Recoomendation

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

Understood, which is why I sent this in several weeks early.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs


From: Novoa, Osvaldo [mailto:onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 10:02 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; GNSO Council (council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry'
Subject: RE: Revised Motion on ICANN Bylaw Recoomendation

Jeff,
Even though I agree with you that it looks like a small change in the Bylaws 
that just clarifies a process that should have been there, any change in the 
Bylaws is important and should be analyze thoroughly.  Also I need the opinion 
of my constituency and for that we have to discussed this internally.  This 
said, I hope to have a position by Durban, if not I will be forced to ask for a 
deferral.
Best regards,
Osvaldo

________________________________
De: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] En nombre de Neuman, Jeff
Enviado el: Viernes, 28 de Junio de 2013 09:46
Para: Neuman, Jeff; GNSO Council 
(council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)
CC: 'Glen de Saint Géry'
Asunto: [council] Revised Motion on ICANN Bylaw Recoomendation

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> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 10:44 PM
To: GNSO Council (council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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/>


________________________________
El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente 
al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. 
Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente 
respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los 
posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier 
utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad 
que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna 
responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida 
incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información


This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the 
addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender 
immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. 
Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not 
the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any 
communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.