[PC-NCSG] Proposed motion for GNSO Council meeting

[joy]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

thanks Maria - looks good

Joy

On 3/04/2013 4:17 a.m., David Cake wrote:
> I would suggest specifically mentioning that ICANN itself ( and
> ALAC, and the GNSO) all agree that it is policy, not implantation,
> and no justification at all is offered for staff treating it as an
> implementation issue with no need for the involvement of the GNSO
> or any other policy process.
> 
> On 02/04/2013, at 9:33 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Today's the deadline for motions to be discussed at the Beijing
>> GNSO Council meeting. The agenda for the meeting is pretty light
>> and doesn't touch on some of the key current issues: RAA and
>> TMCH. Robin suggested we try and prompt discussion on the TMCH,
>> so here's a draft motion I could propose - VERY happy to take
>> re-drafts of it, but I need to submit it today, April 2nd.
>> 
>> Cheers, Maria
>> 
>> 
>> "The GNSO Council registers its disappointment and concern at the
>> recent adoption in significant parts by ICANN staff of the TMCH
>> "Strawman Solution" proposed by a narrow subset of GNSO
>> stakeholders and developed in an un-transparent manner by a
>> numerically imbalanced subset of ICANN stakeholders. The
>> significant expansion by staff of rights protection mechanisms in
>> the new gTLDs, following a lengthy and balanced policy process of
>> the GNSO that settled and closed these issues represents an
>> unwarranted intrusion into the policy-making function by ICANN
>> staff. The GNSO Council notes the recent public comments by the
>> CEO to the Non-Contracted Parties House of the GNSO in January
>> 2013 that the process of developing these further rights
>> protection mechanisms was procedurally flawed and did not meet
>> ICANN's standards of transparency and accountability. The GNSO
>> Council strongly regrets the decision by ICANN staff and a small
>> number of stakeholders to circumvent the established, transparent
>> and rules-based policy development process, to the detriment of
>> the GNSO Council's bylaw-defined role and the multi-stakeholder
>> model more generally."
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org 
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org 
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRWyyjAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqAOUIAIz0lMwbJfsFWaK9G3aCbVTL
9GKfzmbdmg+q+X5x/IHlksYXUIW94eoWXMsIDLaITwQ0F/6JFdcMqsmldrdtorxT
RshKpe4NFvMmw7QmO0jeao2i/XPWlMdyrJFDwDBO6dRPl/R5RazEOoWmYRNLWqtT
OjPLopwdLy8+V+zYe0HF8IrM7hTc0yxDMkPO6S8Zjktx+NhNv69qwE5bV8E2ziUu
//9k2TKjeRmtphFUalHBbQJfYq7/59Ovf1T40zuK2KfQi/eWvwPe5LZYzK9OHZMx
YBH7C7JbiHmlBrIJ/xKlYRHpWR8VP9GWRNL+RTt6Ou18ipHim5ZN7E4Wi6Kl+T4=
=eiae
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----