RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Rationale for Board Committee Resolution Posted

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

Whether the board has specific constraints or not, the Bylaws support a 
bottom-up process that they should follow just like the rest of us; if they do 
not, then the importance of a clear rationale is all the more important.

Please clarify what you mean when you say that the group " tried to create 
further special 'protections', e.g. the right of implicit/explicit licensing".

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 10:17 AM
> To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Rationale for Board Committee
> Resolution Posted
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> >> A rationale that talks about GNSO process issues without discussing
> the major process issue with the original Board motion that led to this
> is seriously lacking.
> 
> As I tried to point out in one of the comment I made, the GNSO is
> constrained to use its processes in creating new policy by our by-laws
> and by the operating procedures.  The Board has no such constraints.
> The only constraints they have is in terms of how they handle our
> proposed policy recommendations, i.e if we do the right thing and
> follow all of our processes and have  a super majority, then they need
> a super majority to ignore GNSO recommendations.  We did not follow
> proper process and hence there was no constraint on them to even
> consider what we had to say.  The fact that they did, is due to their
> grace.   Even the comment periods they allowed for the AGB, went far
> beyond their by-laws requirements.
> 
> That ability of the board to act on it own guidance may be a larger
> issue we should all rally to in a separate cause, but in this specific
> case we did not follow required processes. And in any case, I am sure
> they had a super-majority to overrule the strong support rom this group
> and the vote of the g-council.
> 
> I also think that if the group had only tried to fix the so-called
> flaws n the implementation, it might have gotten further. Instead it
> tried to create further special 'protections', e.g. the right of
> implicit/explicit licensing.  If the addition of names to the reserved
> list by the Board without a policy process s a big thing, the creation
> of a new class of reserved names that have the rights of licensing, it
> a monumental thing that should be subject to a proper policy process.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 20 Apr 2012, at 12:38, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > Thanks Margie.
> >
> > I find the following interesting with regard to the rationale:
> > *         The committee was concerned about the public comment period
> not being closed as well as other process issues and yet the original
> Board decision to provide RC/IOC protections in the guidebook was done
> without following processes and without even a brief consultation with
> the GNSO.
> > *         There was also concern that implementation details had not
> been worked out and yet the implementation details for the Board motion
> in the guidebook were done without community input and that resulted in
> the flaws that the DT tried to address.
> > *         The fact that there was opposition to the motion should not
> have been a concern because that is often the case in such a diverse,
> multi-stakeholder process; more importantly, when the Board originally
> made its decision on this issue, there would very likely have been
> opposition as well but they didn't check.
> > A rationale that talks about GNSO process issues without discussing
> the major process issue with the original Board motion that led to this
> is seriously lacking.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Margie Milam
> > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 11:53 AM
> > To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Rationale for Board Committee Resolution
> Posted
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > Please note that the rationale for the Board's New GTLD Program
> Committee resolution on the GNSO recommendations with regard to the
> IOC/RC issue has been posted at:
> >
> > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-new-
> gtld-10apr12-en.htm
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Margie
> > _____
> >
> > Margie Milam
> > Senior Policy Counselor
> > ICANN
> > _____
> >
>