Re: [council] IGO/RC motion
At 23/07/2014 03:14 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
On 23-Jul-14 15:04, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> In as much as the motion and its intended action (to take another look
> at the protections given ICO and INGOs in the new gTLD program) is as
> much politics as policy, I don't think delaying the discussion and vote
> enhances likelihood of passage. There are voices in the BC who question
> why we are willing to re-open a decision that was unanimously closed.
For clarity sake:
By "decision that was unanimously closed." do you mean the PDP
Also, have any new arguments have been offered, or is it just because
the GAC disagrees with our recommendations. Something which should not
come as a surprise since they don't even agree with our standing to make
recommendations on this topic.
Fro a process perspective, I think in this case we reopen if we enough
of the council agrees that we would like to see our recommendations
amended as suggested by the Board.
I think that an argument can be made that the WG did not thoroughly
discuss on its merits, the RC issue on the table, nod did it ever
consider what I understand to be the request on the IGO acronyms.
We continually say that the GNSO Council should not be the policy
making body, but WG are where the substantive discussions should take
place. Given that, I do not agree that we should vet the detailed
proposal before passing it to the WG. We should pass it to them with
no comment and let them have the in depth conversations on the
merits. Then the Council can agree or disagree with the
recommendations they make (either way), along with their rationale.
BTW, I earlier, you mentioned that an NCSG position was that whatever
we give IGOs, we should give INGOs. The ALAC was an early advocate of
INGO protections and I think it would likely agree with you in this
case. I would support incorporating that into anything we pass to the WG.