Re: [council] GNSO Council Action Items

[Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jonathan,

On action item 2, I've asked my colleagues in the NCSG to help me draft a
letter.

What is our deadline?

All the best, Maria


On 13 September 2013 10:53, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> All,****
>
> ** **
>
> Regarding the GNSO Council Action Items, at our last meeting, we agreed to
> confirm the requirement with respect to the following:****
>
> ** **
>
> *BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3*****
>
> 1.    The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the Board
> Governance Committee (copying the New gTLD Programme Committee). *Jeff
> Neumann to draft*****
>
> 2.    The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the ATRT2. *A
> volunteer to draft*.****
>
> a. To highlight concerns with the reconsideration process as a mechanism
> for ensuring accountability and transparency.****
>
> b. To not propose a specific remedy but rather to leave that to the ATRT.*
> ***
>
> 3.    The Chair, on behalf of the GNSO Council, writes to the ICANN Board.
> *Jonathan to draft*.****
>
> a. To summarise and refer to both 1 & 2 above****
>
> b. To highlight on-going concerns about the issue of accountability for
> actions (implementation or policy) which are not in agreement with GNSO
> policy or policy advice.****
>
> c. To propose solutions such as:****
>
> - Agreement to effectively communicate with the GNSO in the event that a
> decision goes against such policy or policy advice
> (something we have already agreed to on the back of our Beijing / recent
> discussions)****
>
> - Possible change/s to the ICANN bylaws****
>
> ** **
>
> Having seen the outcome of the latest reconsideration request i.e. as
> follows:****
>
> ** **
>
> *Based on the foregoing, the BGC concludes that Booking.com has not
> stated proper *
>
> *grounds for reconsideration and we therefore recommend that
> Booking.com’s request be denied*
>
> *without further consideration. This Request challenges a substantive
> decision taken by a panel in*
>
> *the New gTLD Program and not the process by which that decision was
> taken. As stated in our*
>
> *Recommendation on Request 13-2, Reconsideration is not a mechanism for
> direct, de novo*
>
> *appeal of staff or panel decisions with which the requester disagrees,
> and seeking such relief is,*
>
> *in fact, in contravention of the established processes within ICANN.*
>
> ** **
>
> It strikes me that point 2 above, assisted by the latest reconsideration
> decision, remains valid.****
>
> ** **
>
> Looking at points 1 & 3 above, it strikes me that 1 is no longer required
> and has been dealt with by other communications and actions but 3 may still
> be valid.****
>
> ** **
>
> Therefore, please can you assist me by confirming (or denying) that going
> forwards, we should complete the action by:****
>
> ** **
>
> **1.       **Dropping Action 1 above****
>
> **2.       **Completing Action 2 above (If so, a volunteer to draft
> please?)****
>
> **3.       **Completing 3 above.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thank-you.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Jonathan****
>
> ** **
>