So can we right a congratulatory letter? I am not kidding. We criticize so often, and board members do appear to be aggrieved in some measure by that criticism....a nice "attaboy" note might be welcome. cheers stephanie On 2014-11-05, 14:01, Robin Gross wrote: > Yes, I'm encouraged by the board's letter to GAC on this issue and its > defense of the critical role of the GNSO in ICANN's policy development > process. I'm also happy to read the board's concern for following the > process stated in the organization's bylaws. Better late than never! > > Best, > Robin > > > On Nov 4, 2014, at 1:16 AM, David Cake wrote: > >> I think this is a very welcome and appropriate action by the board. >> And a very welcome push back against some GAC members who seem to >> think the GACs role is whatever they would like it to be, and a very >> solid and appropriate defence of the GNSOs (and therefore >> multi-stakeholder policy making) in policy development. >> >> David >> >> >> On 4 Nov 2014, at 1:39 pm, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: [council] Letter from Steve Crocker to GAC Chair regarding >>> GNSO/GAC role in gTLD policy development >>> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 04:33:11 +0000 >>> From: Mary Wong <[log in to unmask]> >>> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Council members, >>> >>> You and your communities will likely be interested in the latest letter sent >>> by Board Chair Steve Crocker to new GAC Chair Thomas Schneider, responding >>> to that part of the GAC advice in its London Communique in which the GAC >>> commented that protections for Red Cross designations ought not to be >>> conditioned on a PDP: >>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-schneider-03 >>> nov14-en.pdf >>> >>> Pertinent parts of Dr Crocker¹s letter include the following excerpt: "While >>> the GAC may participate in the policy development process, and has a role to >>> ³provide advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of >>> governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between >>> ICANN¹s policies and various laws and international agreements or where they >>> may affect public policy issues,² the GNSO has the authority to recommend >>> substantive policies on topics that are within the scope of ICANN¹s mission >>> statement, has potentially broad applicability to multiple situations or >>> organizations, is likely to have lasting value or applicability, and will >>> establish a guide or framework for future decision-making. The Board has >>> concerns about the advice in the London Communiqué because it appears to be >>> inconsistent with the framework established in the Bylaws granting the GNSO >>> authority to recommend consensus policies to the Board, and the Board to >>> appropriately act upon policies developed through the bottom-up consensus >>> policy developed by the GNSO.² >>> >>> Dr Crocker¹s letter also serves to ³kick off² the prescribed Board-GAC >>> consultation process envisaged in the ICANN Bylaws in instances where the >>> Board disagrees with GAC advice. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Mary >>> >>> Mary Wong >>> Senior Policy Director >>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >>> Email:[log in to unmask] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >