You make me blush, Stephanie. :) Thanks for the compliment. I'm just personally glad you've chosen to double down your involvement here. Your professionalism, integrity and depth of knowledge makes this a much more interesting and informative place to be. With a mixture of old and new the NCSG surely is on the rise. That can only be good for noncommercial users everywhere!
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 09:03:37 -0400
Subject: Re: reconsideration request

Once again, I agree totally with Ed and congratulate him on being far more eloquent than I (not to mention more aware of the proper procedures).
Stephanie Perrin
On 2014-08-30, 8:22, Edward Morris wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
Hi,
 
I’ll weigh on this in a way that will likely leave no one happy as I’m probably in the middle between the two extreme views. Nevertheless…
 
First, let’s remember that everyone involved here are good people acting in good faith. I don’t believe that is necessarily true of certain members of the ICANN staff in their actions on other matters. Intent matters and we need to be careful in drawing parallels between various topics. To the extent that some of the posts have bordered on the personal I hope we can draw it back a little bit.
 
Second, I don’t see this as being an issue of accountability as much as it is an issue of interpretation of the NCSG Charter. Rafik and Avri, in very helpful posts, have posited differing views on the various responsibilities and duties of the different organs in our internal processes. They are both reasonable positions and should be accorded respect.
 
As to the substance of the issue at hand:
 
I’d first like to thank Robin for drafting the Reconsideration Request. These are not easy things to write and she’s done a nice job. I do believe that this effort is in keeping with what I view as rough consensus on the list for further action.
 
Further, I disagree with Avri’s assertion that Reconsideration Requests are only for “process violations.” That is certainly true for Independent Review actions per Article IV section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws. It is not true for Reconsideration Requests per Article IV section 3 of the Bylaws:
 
---
 
“Section 2. RECONSIDERATION
 
ICANN shall have in place a process by which any person or entity materially affected by an action of ICANN may request review or reconsideration of that action by the Board.
 
Any person or entity may submit a request for reconsideration or review of an ICANN action or inaction ("Reconsideration Request") to the extent that he, she, or it have been adversely affected by:
 
1. one or more staff actions or inactions that contradict established ICANN policy(ies);
 
---
 
This RR involves our allegation that staff action contradicted established ICANN policies. It is a legitimate subject for a Reconsideration Request. I support both the substance and intent of this RR and am very happy to see it has been filed. Thanks Robin!
 
 
 
As to the dispute concerning the proper division of responsibilities according to the NCSG Charter, again I view this dispute not as an accountability question but rather as a Constitutional question, I find myself in complete agreement with Avri’s position. This RR should not have been submitted in the name of the NCSG.
 
As Amr has pointed out the key section of the NCSG Charter relating to this question is section 2.5 that states the Policy Committee is responsible for:
 
---

“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”
 
---
 
Rafik is perfectly correct in asserting there are other sections of the Charter which could be used to support the position that other bodies or individuals within the NCSG Executive could authorize the submission of a document such as the RR. While recognizing that this argument is reasonable and is done in good faith I do not find it very persuasive when contrasted with the very clear language of section 2.5 of the NCSG Charter.
 
Robin has already noted her willingness to change the Requester identity in the RR submission. She noted other ICANN groupings may also wish to be included. That is all for the good but I suggest we 1) acknowledge this was not handled properly, and 2) see if there is rough consensus on the PC for the filing of a RR.
 
If there is sufficient support on the PC for the RR, as distasteful as post hoc legitimization is, I’d suggest we leave things as it is and move on and use this episode as a learning experience we shall endeavor not to repeat. If there is not, the RR needs to be withdrawn and resubmitted with different Requesters.
 
I should note this conflict illustrates the need for Charter Reform. As someone who has been unsuccessful in his efforts to reform the NCUC Charter I know how hard such an effort is. Nevertheless, once the GNSO Review is completed it is something I hope we can get to with full support of both our leadership and our members.
 
Thanks,
 
Ed
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 11:45:08 +0200
Subject: Re: reconsideration request
 
Hi,
 
On Aug 30, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Remmy Nweke <[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