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