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

[Stephanie Perrin]

I doubt you are being unduly skeptical Ed.  One of my favorite execs 
while I was in government had a framed sign hanging by his desk...."no 
matter how cynical you get, it is never enough to keep up."  Words to 
live by.  However, that does not mean we should not send a nice attaboy 
letter when we actually agree with something.
cheers steph
On 2014-11-05, 20:39, Edward Morris wrote:
> It's obviously a positive letter from our perspective but forgive me 
> if I remain a bit hesitant to throw Steve a bouquet or two. It's in 
> the self - interest of the Board to neuter the GAC a bit, and a bit 
> easier to do right now with the GAC's leadership in transition. I 
> agree with Robin - better late than never - but remain skeptical that 
> the same Board which has had trouble adhering to its Bylaws in the 
> past, at least from our perspective, has found a new religion. I 
> certainly hope my sckepticism is unwarranted.
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA>
>     To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>     Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 20:17:27 -0500
>     Subject: Re: [council] Letter from Steve Crocker to GAC Chair
>     regarding GNSO/GAC role in gTLD policy development
>
>     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 <avri at ACM.ORG
>>>     <mailto: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/20141105/5b0bd2b4/attachment.htm>