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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

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
> _____
>