Just forwarding to the NCSG list as well....
Stephanie

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] reconsideration request
Date: 	Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:52:46 -0400
From: 	Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]>
To: 	<[log in to unmask]>



Me too, and I thought we had discussed this enough.  Frankly, being 
Chair is a thankless job.  Let's try to be as supportive as possible.
Thanks everyone
Stephanie
On 2014-08-30, 5:45, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Aug 30, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Remmy Nweke <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Segun and Avri
>> I think Rafik has given enough explanation on issues raised its 
>> either we accept his explanation or suggest more better was of 
>> mitigation now and in the future.
>> Or better still call for consensus/vote where time permits.
>
> I completely agree. For what it's worth, I'm happy to endorse this RR 
> after-the-fact. I believe that, as opposed to the joint SO/AC letter 
> draft previously circulated, that this RR was a lot more specific in 
> its reasons, which seem pretty justifiable to me. Although the 
> accountability process isn't specifically a policy on gTLD policy, it 
> is still very much reflective of ICANN staff and board 
> decision-making. The By-Laws are as clear on ICANN's requirement to be 
> transparent and inclusive of its community on one as the other.
>
> I do, however, recognise that the NCSG decision-making process wasn't 
> followed. The way I see it (and others may disagree) is that on of the 
> NCSG PC duties included in our charter stating:
> /
> /
> *"/Discussion and development of substantive policies and statements 
> issued in the name of the NCSG. This activity will require 
> coordination with the membership and the Constituencies"/*
>
> ..., includes statements that represent the NCSG, which are not 
> specific to the work of the GNSO Council.
>
> Still..., I do believe that our Chair did act in good faith when 
> deciding to sign off on the RR on behalf of the NCSG. Considering the 
> time restraint he had to deal with and what I perceive to be a rough 
> estimation of general sentiment expressed on this list, I believe he 
> acted not on his own behalf, but on how he perceived the NCSG 
> membership would have wished him to act. I don't imagine it's easy 
> being in that position, and I appreciate Rafik's willingness to act in 
> the way he thought was best for the SG.
>
>> Can't we request for extended time even by a week to put our house 
>> position in order?
>
> Not that I can tell, Remmy. The process for submitting RRs is limited 
> to a 15-day period following the staff or board action (check here: 
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-2012-02-25-en).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> [log in to unmask]
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg






_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
[log in to unmask]
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg