RE: [council] GNSO Council Action Items

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Maria,

 

I know we did not discuss this any further and had intended to.  Is there
any progress to report from your side?

 

Essentially, from a Council perspective, the key issue to be covered in 2 as
I understand it, is not so much on the detail of the specific
reconsideration request but more on the reconsideration mechanism as an
accountability and transparency measure.

 

Given that all or almost all reconsideration requests have been denied in
the past, due to the narrowness of scope of the reconsideration process, the
Council raised the question as to whether or not the reconsideration process
provides a sufficient or complete A & T mechanism.

 

An example given to illustrate this was, what if the staff followed
procedure perfectly but produced an outcome that was "wrong".  The
reconsideration would likely be denied but the outcome would be
unsatisfactory.

 

Therefore the point we need to make to the ATRT is to highlight that the
reconsideration request is an insufficient mechanism and that we would like
them to consider additional mechanisms to ensure A & T.

 

Time is moving on this one.  Do others agree with my recollection and
understanding and can anyone comment on whether or not we have missed the
boat as far as communicating this to the ATRT?

 

Thanks,

 

 

Jonathan

 

 

From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 20 September 2013 08:43
To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Action Items

 

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