<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] RE: Revised Motion on ICANN Bylaw Recoomendation
The motion has been posted on the Wiki page at :
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+July+2013
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Glen
De : Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Envoyé : vendredi 28 juin 2013 20:39
À : 'Novoa, Osvaldo'; GNSO Council (council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Cc : Glen de Saint Géry
Objet : RE: Revised Motion on ICANN Bylaw Recoomendation
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<mailto: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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|