<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
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).<br>
Stephanie Perrin<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2014-08-30, 8:22, Edward Morris
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:WC20140830122209.8413D5@milk.toast.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div style="font-size: 13px; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0,
0); font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image:
none; background-attachment: scroll; background-origin:
padding-box; background-clip: border-box; background-color:
rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-size: auto; background-position: 0%
0%; background-repeat: repeat repeat;">Hi,<br>
<br>
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…<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
As to the substance of the issue at hand:<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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:<br>
<br>
---<br>
<br>
“Section 2. RECONSIDERATION<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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:<br>
<br>
1. one or more staff actions or inactions that contradict
established ICANN policy(ies);<br>
<br>
---<br>
<br>
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!<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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:<br>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0,
0); font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image:
none; background-attachment: scroll; background-origin:
padding-box; background-clip: border-box; background-color:
rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-size: auto; background-position: 0%
0%; background-repeat: repeat repeat;">---</div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0,
0); font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image:
none; background-attachment: scroll; background-origin:
padding-box; background-clip: border-box; background-color:
rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-size: auto; background-position: 0%
0%; background-repeat: repeat repeat;"><br>
“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”</div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0,
0); font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image:
none; background-attachment: scroll; background-origin:
padding-box; background-clip: border-box; background-color:
rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-size: auto; background-position: 0%
0%; background-repeat: repeat repeat;"> </div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0,
0); font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image:
none; background-attachment: scroll; background-origin:
padding-box; background-clip: border-box; background-color:
rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-size: auto; background-position: 0%
0%; background-repeat: repeat repeat;">---</div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0,
0); font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image:
none; background-attachment: scroll; background-origin:
padding-box; background-clip: border-box; background-color:
rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-size: auto; background-position: 0%
0%; background-repeat: repeat repeat;"> <br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Ed</div>
<div style="font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size:
13px; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image:
none; background-attachment: scroll; background-origin:
padding-box; background-clip: border-box; background-color:
rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-size: auto; background-position: 0%
0%; background-repeat: repeat repeat;">
<blockquote style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px;
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid;
MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Amr Elsadr <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:aelsadr@EGYPTIG.ORG"><aelsadr@EGYPTIG.ORG></a><br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 11:45:08 +0200<br>
Subject: Re: reconsideration request<br>
<div>Hi,</div>
<div>
<div>On Aug 30, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Remmy Nweke <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:remmyn@GMAIL.COM">remmyn@GMAIL.COM</a>>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-family: TrebuchetMS; font-size: 14px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">
<div>
<div style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif;">Thanks Segun and Avri<br>
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.<br>
Or better still call for consensus/vote where time
permits.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><b>“<i><span style="line-height: 19.047618865966797px;">
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</span><span
style="line-height: 19px;">
”</span><span style="line-height:
19.047618865966797px;"> </span>
</i></b></div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div>…, includes statements that represent the NCSG, which
are not specific to the work of the GNSO Council.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-family: TrebuchetMS; font-size: 14px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">
<div>
<div style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif;">Can't we request for extended time even
by a week to put our house position in order?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>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: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-2012-02-25-en">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-2012-02-25-en</a>
).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Amr</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>