It's obviously a positive letter from our perspective but forgive me if I
remain a bit hesitant to throw Steve a bouquet or two. It's in the self -
interest of the Board to neuter the GAC a bit, and a bit easier to do right
now with the GAC's leadership in transition. I agree with Robin - better
late than never - but remain skeptical that the same Board which has had
trouble adhering to its Bylaws in the past, at least from our perspective,
has found a new religion. I certainly hope my sckepticism is unwarranted.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 20:17:27 -0500
Subject: Re: [council] Letter from Steve Crocker to GAC Chair regarding
GNSO/GAC role in gTLD policy development
So can we right a congratulatory letter?
I am not kidding. We criticize so often, and board members do appear to be
aggrieved in some measure by that criticism....a nice "attaboy" note might
be welcome.
cheers stephanie
On 2014-11-05, 14:01, Robin Gross wrote:
Yes, I'm encouraged by the board's letter to GAC on this issue and its
defense of the critical role of the GNSO in ICANN's policy development
process. I'm also happy to read the board's concern for following the
process stated in the organization's bylaws. Better late than never!
Best,
Robin
On Nov 4, 2014, at 1:16 AM, David Cake wrote:
I think this is a very welcome and appropriate action by the board.
And a very welcome push back against some GAC members who seem to think the
GACs role is whatever they would like it to be, and a very solid and
appropriate defence of the GNSOs (and therefore multi-stakeholder policy
making) in policy development.
David
On 4 Nov 2014, at 1:39 pm, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Letter from Steve Crocker to GAC Chair regarding GNSO/GAC
role in gTLD policy development
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 04:33:11 +0000
From: Mary Wong <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Dear Council members,
You and your communities will likely be interested in the latest letter sent
by Board Chair Steve Crocker to new GAC Chair Thomas Schneider, responding
to that part of the GAC advice in its London Communique in which the GAC
commented that protections for Red Cross designations ought not to be
conditioned on a PDP:
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-schneider-03
nov14-en.pdf
Pertinent parts of Dr Crocker¹s letter include the following excerpt:
"While
the GAC may participate in the policy development process, and has a role to
³provide advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of
governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between
ICANN¹s policies and various laws and international agreements or where
they
may affect public policy issues,² the GNSO has the authority to recommend
substantive policies on topics that are within the scope of ICANN¹s mission
statement, has potentially broad applicability to multiple situations or
organizations, is likely to have lasting value or applicability, and will
establish a guide or framework for future decision-making. The Board has
concerns about the advice in the London Communiqué because it appears to be
inconsistent with the framework established in the Bylaws granting the GNSO
authority to recommend consensus policies to the Board, and the Board to
appropriately act upon policies developed through the bottom-up consensus
policy developed by the GNSO.²
Dr Crocker¹s letter also serves to ³kick off² the prescribed Board-GAC
consultation process envisaged in the ICANN Bylaws in instances where the
Board disagrees with GAC advice.
Cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: [log in to unmask]
|
