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?
Thanks.
Amr