Fwd: [council] Letter from Steve Crocker to GAC Chair regarding GNSO/GAC role in gTLD policy development

[David Cake]

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 <avri at ACM.ORG> 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 <mary.wong at icann.org>
> To:	council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> 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: mary.wong at icann.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20141104/ff14a49b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20141104/ff14a49b/attachment.sig>