fyi: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14723.html ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives [council] <<< Chronological Index >>> <<< Thread Index >>> [council] RE: BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3 To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [council] RE: BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3 From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:35:54 +0000 Accept-language: en-AU, en-US In-reply-to: <[log in to unmask]> List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx References: <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thread-index: Ac5sXY6++Y5Fi2zrRz+quwt6omMnlAAElETgAARfxFA= Thread-topic: BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3 Hello All, Thank you for the letter from the GNSO Council regarding Reconsideration Request 13-3. Just an update. The Board Governance Committee had an extensive discussion around this topic in its meeting today. Staff will be reviewing the text of the rationale following the discussion. The current plan is for the Board Governance Committee to meet again on 25 June 2013 to review the rationale. In terms of a discussion in Durban, I suggest we have the discussion around GNSO advice, and involvement of the GNSO in the implementation of policies, outside of the context of the wording of the rationale. I.e. I think we should discuss this at a broader level - ie what are the lessons learned from this case - rather than debate the case itself. The Board Governance Committee is also having discussions about the broader topic and would welcome further discussions in Durban. It is also a useful topic for the Board as a whole, and certainly has been a topic of the past two public ICANN meetings. As I see it, we have a detailed process in the bylaws that sets out how the GNSO develops policy recommendations, and how the Board approves those recommendations to form ICANN policy. The GNSO is free to create policy recommendations using the PDP on any of the new gTLD topics - including the trademark clearinghouse. These policy recommendations may change current policies, or current implementations of policies (e.g. . various implementation details of the transfers policy). As Jeff and others have pointed out, the bylaws are less clear on how the Board and staff should treat advice from the GNSO Council on implementations of ICANN policies etc. Presently this is primarily treated via the various public comment forums but there is no special standing for the GNSO in those forums, and through the various meetings between the Board and the GNSO Council at its public meetings. There is no defined process at this point however. In contrast the bylaws do set out formal processes for responding to GAC advice which frequently focus on implementation of policies. I note that in most of the Board/GNSO Council meetings - both parties mostly hear the views of individual members. There is not usually a discussion on a formal piece of GNSO Advice. One thing the GAC tends to do, after meetings between the Board and the GAC, is formulate its views as the formal GAC Communique that is assumed to represent a consensus of the GAC on a particular topic that was discussed. The Board then has an option to subsequently meet with the GAC to specifically go through the GAC Communiqué. I believe this will happen in Durban with respect to some points from their Beijing Communiqué. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Chair, Board Governance Committee On Jun 18, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > Interesting discussion on the GNSO Council list on this issue today: > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/ > > > On Jun 18, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > >> fyi: >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> >>> Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Request for Discussion with ICANN Board RE: Impact on Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance Model From Rationale Provided in BGC Response to NCSG Reconsideration Request 13-3 >>> Date: June 17, 2013 5:22:10 PM PDT >>> To: Diane Schroeder <[log in to unmask]> >>> Cc: NCSG-Policy <[log in to unmask]>, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask] >>> >>> Dear Diane, Would you please forward my below email to the entire ICANN Board of Directors at your earliest opportunity? Thank you very much. - Robin >>> >>> ====== >>> >>> Dear ICANN Board of Directors: >>> >>> I am writing to you on behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and other concerned members of the ICANN community regarding the harmful implications to the community-led multi-stakeholder policy development model if the ICANN Board decides to adopt the rationale provided in the recommendation of the Board Governance Committee (BGC) in response to the NCSG's Request for Reconsideration (13-3). The rationale provided in the BGC's recommendation, which appears to be drafted by over-reaching lawyers, attempts to set a precedent that ICANN staff can over-rule the GNSO Council on policy decisions at its own discretion. This decision has alarmed community members beyond the NCSG and beyond those who were originally concerned with the underlying issue that NCSG was initially probing of staff's adoption of the "TM+50" policy for the Trademark Clearinghouse. >>> >>> The GNSO Council expressed concern about the BGC decision rationale at length during council's 13 June meeting; and I encourage all Board Members to listen to audio recording of the GNSO Council discussion or read the attached transcript to get a better understanding the concerns of members of several different GNSO stakeholder groups. >>> >>> The rationale provided in the BGC decision, if adopted by the entire board, would cement the change in ICANN's policy development model away from the bottom-up community-led governance model to a top-down staff-driven model with no checks on abuses or poor staff decisions. If the rationale provided in this BGC decision is adopted by the Board, which goes well beyond the narrow issue presented to it, ICANN threatens to undermine its own legitimacy as a global governance institution, and it loses the ability to label itself as a community-led bottom-up model for Internet governance. >>> >>> We understand the BGC's recommendation is on the agenda to be adopted on 25 June 2013 by the Board's New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC). Given the Board's record of adopting all 15 BGC decisions that have come before it in the last ten years, there is concern that this BGC recommendation will be similarly adopted by the Board with little understanding or discussion of the harm to ICANN's legitimacy and the multi-stakeholder model that this precedent threatens. The handling of this reconsideration request has also raised concerns about ICANN's "accountability" mechanism, which appears to allow the same legal team that created and adopted a policy to later evaluate the legitimacy of that policy's adoption. >>> >>> We therefore respectfully request that the Board meet with concerned members of the community including NCSG to permit a more complete discussion and understanding of the concerns raised by the rationale provided in the BGC decision and to allow for appropriate adjustments to the decision before it is adopted by the Board. We would gladly meet with the Members of the ICANN Board during the Durban Meeting or before, at the Board's convenience, to discuss this decision and welcome all members of the community to join in the discussion. Please let us know if the Board is available to meet with NCSG and others in the community on this crucial issue at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to fruitful discussions going into Durban and stand ready to provide whatever assistance is needed. >>> >>> Truly, >>> Robin Gross >>> NCSG Chair >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> [log in to unmask] >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >