[council] RE: [council] RE: [council] Letter to Fadi Chehadé and Stephen Crocker August 26th, 2014

[john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Jonathan, Amr:
 
As you, Jonathan, were elected by the Registries and you, Amr, by the 
Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, your names, like mine and Gabi's, are 
already, technically, on the request for reconsideration.  If Councillors from 
the Registrars, ISPC or IPC or even our NomComm appointed colleagues were to 
want the Council to consider it, that would be pushing the issue further along 
and I would support.  But I think such an initiative ought to come from a 
Councillor whose "name" is not already on the request.
 
Cheers,
 
Berard
 
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: [council] RE: [council] Letter to 
Fadi Chehadé and Stephen Crocker August 26th, 2014
From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 8/31/14 10:15 am
To: "'Amr Elsadr'" <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'GNSO Council List'" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


 Thanks Amr,
 
 Good point and good question and I'd welcome a discussion in and around the
 issues at some point.
 
 Key point is that whenever I communicate with the authority of Council (by
 motion or consensus) I typically write:
 
 A. As Chair
 B. For and on behalf of the Council
 
 In this case, I was asked if I would sign onto the letter as myself, not on
 behalf of the Council.
 Now, clearly I am chair and cannot expect my comments to be seen completely
 independent of the GNSO/Council.
 
 In this (rare) case, I made a judgement call that I could sign off on it, in
 part because there was significant support from the SG & Constituency
 leadership colleagues from the GNSO.
 
 If you see the list of names at the end, it is a list of names and not for
 and on behalf of the SGs & Constituencies in each case.
 
 Hope that helps clarify.
 
 
 Jonathan
 
 -----Original Message-----
 From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
 Sent: 31 August 2014 15:17
 To: GNSO Council List
 Subject: [council] Letter to Fadi Chehad&eacute; and Stephen Crocker August 
26th,
 2014
 
 
 Hi,
 
 I’ve been wondering about this letter for a couple of days now
 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/cooper-et-al-to-chehad
 e-et-al-26aug14-en.pdf), and am asking Jonathan and everyone else what the
 procedure is for the GNSO (or GNSO Council) to sign off on it.
 
 I would imagine that a motion and a vote would be necessary, and I imagine
 that it would have been received positively by the majority of Councillors,
 but I don’t recall a discussion taking place. I’m thinking there was either
 a discussion I’ve completely overlooked, or a procedural issue I’m not aware
 of.
 
 To be honest, I wasn’t very much in favour of having the NCSG sign off on
 this letter when it was discussed at the stakeholder group level (and I
 don’t believe the NCSG did actually sign off on it despite being listed as a
 signatory). That is not to say that I am particularly happy with the way the
 Accountability Process is moving forward, but would have preferred if there
 was a more concrete reason to request a delay in the process than to simply
 formulate questions. Speaking for myself, I think the reconsideration
 request filed
 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/request-bc-rysg-ncsg-29aug14-en
 .pdf) served this purpose more eloquently.
 
 I only mention my personal preference in the substantive merits of the
 letter to clarify my personal thoughts, but my question is a process
 question irrespective of the actual contents of the letter.
 
 I would appreciate any and all thoughts on this.
 
 Thanks.
 
 Amr