Hi,
If it is a contradiction of GNSO policy recommendations, they only need a 2/3 vote or better to overrule. I am sure they had that. From the explanations, though, it does not seem like this is what it was.
Certainly this is not bottom-up, and I do not mean that they should be allowed to do such things in peace. I am just arguing that formally, they are behaving within their rights. So when we argue, it is not so much bypassing the GNSO processes that is the issue as much as blowing a hole in the pretense of being a bottom-up organization that we should be protesting.
Of course with a GNSO designed to maximize the potential of deadlock, it is hardly surprising. Perhaps some of those who thought up this particular perversion in organization (the twice bifurcated g-council) thought that a somewhat dysfunctional g-council would be a good thing, never realizing that this very dysfunctionality empowered the Board to make up for its inactivity with their own activity.
avri
On 16 Sep 2012, at 15:34, Robin Gross wrote:
> Since the GNSO working groups (from 5+ years ago) working on the issue of reserved names in cases like these rejected these measures, the board's resolution is at least contradicting the work that the GNSO had done on the issue. That isn't to say that the board can't implement policy that is contrary to what comes out of the GNSO process, but it is hard to call ICANN a "bottom up" policy making organization when these decisions are really coming top down.
>
> Robin
>
> On Sep 16, 2012, at 12:26 PM, William Drake wrote:
>
>> Perhaps I should have put "bypassing" in quotes
>>
>> On Sep 16, 2012, at 21:18, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I still argue that it is not by-passing the GNCO unless it is a picket fence issue.
>>>
>>> And they do give the g-council a chance to react, it just is relatively incapable of action.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>> On 16 Sep 2012, at 15:02, William Drake wrote:
>>>
>>>> They would presumably argue they are necessarily but carefully stepping into the void created by the GNSO's inability to agree and get stuff done. Which is part of a larger dynamic that has some folks unhappy and wanting to discuss Council bypassing in Toronto. The chickens of restructuring are coming home to roost, which in turn feeds into a desired by some of us discussion about the efficacy of the Council going forward in its current form.
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 16, 2012, at 19:29, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> It is the members of the Board who are unconflicted.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/new-gtld
>>>>>
>>>>> And it is not usurpation. Nothing I see in the By-Laws requires the Board to ask the GNSO for policy recommendations. It allows them to and it proscribes how they behave if and when they get it. The only exception may be the constraints in the Registry contracts specifically related to picket fence issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> avri
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 16 Sep 2012, at 13:19, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Who is the New gTLD Program Committee and why are they usurping the GNSO’s role in making policy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of William Drake
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 6:03 AM
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [council] Update from The New gTLD Program Committee on the Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC Issues
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Alan Greenberg <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> Date: September 15, 2012 4:33:28 AM GMT+02:00
>>>>>> To: David Olive <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> Cc: Margie Milam <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Update from The New gTLD Program Committee on the Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC Issues
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The resolution has been posted already - http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13sep12-en.htm .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At 14/09/2012 09:26 PM, David Olive wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For your information.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards, David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Cherine Chalaby
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 1:32 PM
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Cc: Margie Milam; New gTLD Program Committee
>>>>>> Subject: Update from The New gTLD Program Committee on the Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC Issues
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Stéphane,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wanted to reach out to you and the GNSO Council to let you know about an issue of interest to the GNSO that the New gTLD Program Committee addressed this week: the protection of Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC names. The Committee passed a resolution yesterday requesting that the GNSO consider a proposed solution for the first round to protect at the second level the names of Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC, consistent with the GAC advice to the Board.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have been apprised of, and appreciate, the significant work currently underway by the GNSO’s IOC/RC Drafting Team, and the potential PDP under consideration. We crafted the resolution in a way that recognises that GNSO work is ongoing. The resolution and the rationale will be posted next Monday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Committee adopted this resolution now, rather than wait until Toronto, to provide sufficient time for the GNSO to develop its views on this request taking into account the timeline for the first round. It is important that this issue is resolved early next year so that additional protections, if they are adopted, are in place for the first round. As a result, the Committee is seeking the GNSO’s response by January 31, 2013.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We look forward to receiving the GNSO's response and are available to discuss this issue in further detail in Toronto.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cherine Chalaby
>>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
|
