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:
> 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]
> <mailto:[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
>