[PC-NCSG] Reconsideration

[Tapani Tarvainen]

Agreed. I very much believe in following due process,
Sam's got it exactly right.
And getting this kind of thing done in cooperation
with the BC is really something.

Great work, Ed!

Tapani

On Oct 12 10:20, Sam Lanfranco (lanfran at yorku.ca) wrote:

> I am in support of this.
> 
> /Issue: The BC and NCSG believe that all members of the ICANN community are
> materially and adversely affected whenever ICANN staff seeks to impose de
> facto Consensus Policy in a top-down manner that is inconsistent with the
> Bylaws./
> 
> Even if we were to agree with the position taken, we have to get there
> through due process or procedures will mean nothing.
> 
> 
> Sam
> On 12/10/2015 8:53 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
> >Hi guys,
> >I've attached a copy of a draft Reconsideration Request I've been working
> >on with Phil Corwin. There may be some changes in grammar and the like but
> >substantially this is likely to be what we'd hope to submit. As the
> >deadline for submission is tomorrow comments / approval is requested.
> >The base issue at hand is staff imposing new gTLD RPM's on legacy gTLD's
> >through newel agreements. This is de facto development of consensus policy
> >through contract by staff rather than through a properly constituted pop.
> >As we've previously discussed on list this needs to be opposed if the GNSO
> >hopes to maintain its current role.
> >We and the BC certainly do not share common positions on the substantive
> >issue involved here; that is, the BC would be very happy to have the new
> >RPM's applied to legacy gTLD's while that traditionally has not been our
> >position. It's been a bit of a challenge to get language acceptable to
> >both in this regard as Phil head some specific instructions but hopefully
> >we've done do.
> >I'll turn this over to our esteemed Chair and PC head honcho to see how /
> >if we can sign off on this. Again, the submission deadline is tomorrow so
> >this needs to get done pronto. It's rare to get a CSG member to oppose ip
> >expansion, even on a procedural basis, so I hope we can take advantage of
> >this opportunity.
> >Best,
> >Ed
> >