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] 
>> <mailto:[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]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>