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