Hi Seun, Thanks for the question, it is good opportunity to clarify about the process and give clear references to the NCSG charter provisions. A charter can be always open to personal interpretations and so a healthy discussion, without accusations, in the mailing list is always welcome: First the link to NCSG charter, https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter it is good practice to check it from time to time :) Regarding the Policy committee role and tasks, the charter list them as (at articles 2.1.3 and 2.5) , *"The NCSG 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;* - *Organize policy initiatives on behalf of NCSG membership, including PDP initiatives from the membership;* - *Provide policy research and guidance to NCSG representatives on the GNSO Council;* - *Keep membership informed of GNSO Council activities;* - *Organize, appoint where appropriate, and track NCSG participation in GNSO and other pertinent Working Groups.* - *Organization and oversight of NCSG participation in any GNSO Council-related tasks, whether mandated by Bylaws, Council Procedures or Council decisions.* - *Document methods and procedures used for decision-making. Such documentation is subject to review by the NCSG‑EC.* *" * If your read carefully those bullets, they indicate that PC main scope is about GNSO council related activities and policy . that is an important separation with the executive tasks handled by EC and the NCSG chair The question here is about an issue in relation to ICANN accountability and so not related to GNSO council or policy work per se. So how to deal with a reconsideration request which is neither a process issue nor a SG statement on policy matter but kind of appealing mechanism on procedural aspects. the NCSG charter is not clear about that however it gives the NCSG chair some executive power (Article 2.1.3 "The NCSG chair is responsible for carrying out the executive functions of the NCSG under the NCSG-‐EC's oversight according to ICANN, GNSO and NCSG mission and principles."). Regarding the reconsideration request, the window of time to act was short (15 days and the deadline is 29th Aug for this specific issue about accountability process). in fact it may be a good example of accountability mechanism failure . Robin drafted the reconsideration request and asked for support, getting endorsement form other groups in GNSO . I interpreted this as procedural action that need to be done quickly and which doesn't represent any harm for NCSG neither indicate a policy position not endorsed by the PC. it is important to act in timely manner and defend NCSG interests . There was also previous reconsideration request by NCSG and didn't go through NCSG PC endorsement as far I recall. In fact, the reconsideration request doesn't prevent us as NCSG to continue the ongoing work on the accountability track. I was planning to send email to the ad-hoc group to be ready to respond to the accountability process, also to request the NCSG PC to start the process for appointing a representative in the coordination group and finally call for questions regarding the accountability process proposal (not covered in the FAQ) to be compiled and sent to ICANN staff . As always I am responsible for decisions I make and I won't deny if I am wrong since I try to act with good faith. I do think that can be a good time to clarify how reconsideration request or any other matter not covered in the charter can be done in future and write down clear procedures. On other hand, I want also to clarify something related to the joint-letter to ICANN board, I didn't sign it since I asked to hold my signature till I consult NCSG, however due to miscommunication and the leak one of chairs acted quickly. not a good excuse but it is unescapable in environment when we have to respond to many things in short time. that is another symptoms we have with the current accountability process setup hope that helps , Best, Rafik 2014-08-30 13:52 GMT+09:00 Seun Ojedeji <[log in to unmask]>: > I for one appreciate the content of that letter. Nevertheless it should > not justify jumping "any" internal ncsg process. Speaking about the > process, isn't it supposed to be based on observing discussion consensus on > the list... how does the NCSG-PC approve? (Is it also by consensus or > outright voting?) Because if it's on consensus I think there were quite a > lot of concern aired on this list against the Accountability process. > > Cheers! > PS: Still a growing infant within the NCSG so pardon my basic questions ;) > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > On 30 Aug 2014 04:43, "Avri Doria" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> I see that a reconsideration request has been filled with the NCSG >> listed as requester, signed by Steve DelBianco of the Business >> Constituency. >> >> >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/request-bc-rysg-ncsg-29aug14-en.pdf >> >> Was NCSG listed with NCSG permission? >> >> If so, when did the NCSG-PC approve this? Or have we gotten to the >> point that we no longer bother getting approval for such things? I >> may be the only one who objects to this, especially since it is made >> on flawed ground, but I do not remember any consensus calls on the issue >> >> Seems somewhat ironic that we are complaining about the process >> infractions of others when we no longer seem to care about about NCSG >> processes. >> >> No matter what the merits of the case, the fact that this was >> submitted in the NCSG's name without an NCSG decision to do so, is of >> great concern. >> >> In so far as we may or may not have formal procedures that we are >> using, I object to this action and request of review of what process >> was followed in our decision to participate and clarification as to >> who made the decision? >> >> If on the other hand it was submitted in our name without >> authorization, then I request that an amendment to the request be >> filed indicating that there was no authorization for the NCSG to be >> listed on the reconsideration request. >> >> avri >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUAUhXAAoJEOo+L8tCe36HdxUIAItGdnWFq0sjx+CksgabeW2f >> dYsF8RgWu22Q+MeQmK+ssx3mMkRCitvcAuujjfgFZ0hH0JrUaZs4QBy0EdjwlYkl >> SmIRpl4WzsVfd7k1a/keeGeuiIQaK4Vw+GodqhqCc2KamR2lqLs9FQm2D29qUTRT >> tAXS4c4C7pYnaEScqoXUOXOdG33axPw6QZY9xt4bFvFO8OA0llBBTSSpJIIyTpn9 >> H5X/hDl9VceCQiIwmPslhUAW5KKo28pqhYaFEG60SjcYkgCbwbXIBmNZQDlTposu >> pbXvAdYY+UQwUF8FM/MB7Ige1R1Pp9UGWLXSf9TPx85tnZT9/QP7wryP69Sm5bs= >> =7BFL >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >