Re: [council] FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Update from Chris Disspain on the IGO protections issue

[Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello again Julf and everyone,

For your convenience here are the relevant excerpts from the ICANN Bylaws 
describing the applicable processes in the event that the Board decides not to 
follow either GAC advice or GNSO policy recommendations.

For the GAC, the relevant process is detailed in Article XI, Section 2 as 
follows:
- “The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters 
shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of 
policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that 
is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so 
inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that 
advice. The Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, 
in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, 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 Governmental Advisory Committee advice was not 
followed, and such statement will be without prejudice to the rights or 
obligations of Governmental Advisory Committee members with regard to public 
policy issues falling within their responsibilities.”

For the GNSO, the relevant process is detailed in Annex A, Section 9 as follows:
- “Any PDP Recommendations approved by a GNSO Supermajority Vote shall be 
adopted by the Board unless, by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the 
Board, the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of 
the ICANN community or ICANN …
- In the event that the Board determines … that the policy recommended … is not 
in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN (the Corporation), the 
Board shall (i) articulate the reasons for its determination in a report to the 
Council (the "Board Statement"); and (ii) submit the Board Statement to the 
Council.
- The Council shall review the Board Statement for discussion with the Board as 
soon as feasible after the Council's receipt of the Board Statement. The Board 
shall determine the method (e.g., by teleconference, e-mail, or otherwise) by 
which the Council and Board will discuss the Board Statement.
- At the conclusion of the Council and Board discussions, the Council shall 
meet to affirm or modify its recommendation, and communicate that conclusion 
(the "Supplemental Recommendation") to the Board, including an explanation for 
the then-current recommendation. In the event that the Council is able to reach 
a GNSO Supermajority Vote on the Supplemental Recommendation, the Board shall 
adopt the recommendation unless more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board 
determines that such policy is not in the interests of the ICANN community or 
ICANN. For any Supplemental Recommendation approved by less than a GNSO 
Supermajority Vote, a majority vote of the Board shall be sufficient to 
determine that the policy in the Supplemental Recommendation is not in the best 
interest of the ICANN community or ICANN.”

Cheers
Mary

On 8/22/16, 18:52, "owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Johan Helsingius" 
<owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of julf@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

    
    Hi, Mary,
    
    Thanks for the useful information!
    
    > For instance, the Bylaws provide for certain mechanisms if
    > the Board rejects GAC advice on the one hand, and other
    > mechanisms if on the other hand the Board rejects GNSO
    > policy recommendations.
    
    I guess my question was really about those mechanisms in
    the case of the latter alternative.
    
        Julf