-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi

As described in the charter, the NCSG-PC makes policy decisions on
rough consensus (which I expect we might have had had we discussed
it).  We are supposed to make our decisions consistent with the
discussions that go on in the discussion list, recognizing that we
often have split views on things in a SG this large and diverse. In
addition to the NCSG's council members who 'vote' our conscience in
both the PC and the council (you vote us out when our conscience no
longer matches the community conscience) and representatives from each
of the two constituencies.

The NCSG-Executive Committee can define specific processes for each
type of decision the PC makes, if it so desires.  These processes need
to be reviewed by the members.  At this point there are not special
processes defined for the PC other than what the charter defined, i.e.
rough consensus.

As I said in my note to the GNSO council on this issue, I too believe
there are issues to be discussed.  I, for example, think it would have
been wise for the Board to call for a second comment period given the
extent of the changes they made to the plan after the last comment
period. Ad as I wrote in blog on the subject, they of course need to
work with the two groups to develop charters and not impose them from
above.  I also agree that they should have published the synthesis
that is normally published by the policy team for any policy
decisions.  I am not sure, though, that we had a valid claim for
reconsideration, since those depend on a process violation, and I am
not sure which of the by-laws processes they did not follow.  This is
of course one of the things we need to fix in ICANN accountability,
reconsideration should be possible based on content and community
option.  At this point, however and unfortunately, that is not the case.

avri


On 30-Aug-14 07:52, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> I for one appreciate the content of that letter. Nevertheless it
> should not justify jumping "any" internal ncsg process. Speaking
> about the process, isn't it supposed to be based on observing
> discussion consensus on the list... how does the NCSG-PC approve?
> (Is it also by consensus or outright voting?) Because if it's on
> consensus I think there were quite a lot of concern aired on this
> list against the Accountability process.
> 
> Cheers! PS: Still a growing infant within the NCSG so pardon my
> basic questions ;) sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity
> and typos. On 30 Aug 2014 04:43, "Avri Doria" <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> 
> I see that a reconsideration request has been filled with the NCSG 
> listed as requester, signed by Steve DelBianco of the Business 
> Constituency.
> 
> 
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/request-bc-rysg-ncsg-29aug14-en.pdf
>
>  Was NCSG listed with NCSG permission?
> 
> If so, when did the NCSG-PC approve this?  Or have we gotten to
> the point that we no longer bother getting approval for such
> things?  I may be the only one who objects to this, especially
> since it is made on flawed ground, but I do not remember any
> consensus calls on the issue
> 
> Seems somewhat ironic that we are complaining about the process 
> infractions of others when we no longer seem to care about about
> NCSG processes.
> 
> No matter what the merits of the case, the fact that this was 
> submitted in the NCSG's name without an NCSG decision to do so, is
> of great concern.
> 
> In so far as we may or may not have formal procedures that we are 
> using, I object to this action and request of review of what
> process was followed in our decision to participate and
> clarification as to who made the decision?
> 
> If on the other hand it was submitted in our name without 
> authorization, then I request that an amendment to the request be 
> filed indicating that there was no authorization for the NCSG to
> be listed on the reconsideration request.
> 
> avri
>> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUAWGeAAoJEOo+L8tCe36HFnYH/RoytgpfvBrhr4WdqLwWmlU5
Vf4qP2neVS9p+8PsEuMYB8EOx8d5JwXJlYw/GkNBblNuhMHdcjf/V+B59XET4rgh
S8eJWTEqCjfCmKckXOBBxLA4fBQy4SdjMA+54bgjawnLybvFt3ZBtsp6819y0Tux
poiogiucJtvSbE+Za174NmpBmaBJA9kmoNi1YymR1D2y64jNTZBVLyuF9bF9pYl7
wF5E7DPLeLIDPOx1JQs7EOybDmMnn5F/LobXKoXFrCYcUiP7BS73SypjnFrdejW3
yKWRKXX/xgGNKdTQwB+UJXtKYfPIl87KTn3oHomFPkxKuUeH9WD+ZUv9YV6tP90=
=eqgn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----