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