Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Principle ii.b action item

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I would not support this, as I think it completely changes the 
intent. The revised wording puts the onus on staff to recognize a 
mis-match, while the original puts the onus on the GNSO Council or 
its representative (ie the IRT).
Alan

At 16/09/2014 05:59 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
>
> At the last meeting, I expressed concern about the wording of
> Principle II.B in the implementation framework and Chuck suggested that
> I provide some alternative wording. (that was a modified quote from
> Chuck's message reminding me to do this - what a chair!)
>
> Re II.b
>
> > B.    ICANN Staff strive to follow the letter and the intent underlying
> > GNSO Consensus Policy recommendations when designing implementations
> > and transforming Consensus Policy recommendations into Consensus
> > Policies. Staff will be held accountable by the GNSO Council (or its
> > agent, such as an implementation review team) for ensuring that the
> > implementation of policies is consistent with the policy
> > recommendations and the reasoning underlying the policy
> > recommendations.
>
> How about appending something like:
>
> In any case where the intention of the GNSO, as interpreted by the
> ICANN Staff, does not correspond to a strict interpretation of the
> recommendation text itself, the Staff should consult with the GNSO for
> clarification.
>
>
> avri