Fwd: Abstention statement

[Avri Doria]

BCC'ed from the wrong address

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Avri Doria <avri at ella.com>
> Subject: Abstention statement
> Date: 26 March 2012 12:48:59 EDT
> To: Glen de Saint Gery <glen at icann.org>
> Cc: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> Bcc: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> 
> Dear Glen, 
> 
> This is the text of the Abstention Statement I read out during today's GNSO Council Emergency Meeting.:
> 
> Avri
> 
> -----
> 
> 
> After consultation with William Drake, the council member for whom I am a temporary alternate, I make the following Abstention Statement.
> 
> The process by which these special protections for the IFRC/IOC have been established have been irregular from the start.
> 
> Representatives of the American RC, a component of  the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (IFRC), both of which are  members of the NCSG,  did not propose these protections through GNSO processes, even though they held a seat on the GNSO Council for 2 years.  The special protections were also never proposed in any of the NCSG discussion forums or committees.
> 
> While proposed by the RC in comment statements on the DAG, the proposed changes were never proposed as GNSO policy issues while there was still time for a proper PDP, and changes to the policy were not recommended by the GNSO before the release of the AGB.
> 
> And finally, once the Board, in response to GAC advice, made a decision on the creation of new policy concerning a new form of reserved names, the GNSO did not undertake a proper, albeit accelerated development process on the questions that the Board forwarded to the GNSO Council.  
> 
> The GNSO Council is now faced with a vote on a motion created by a drafting team but which has never been through a PDP.  
> 
> Drafting Teams do not have by-laws or GNSO procedural authority to propose policy changes, only  a policy development process can result in such recommendations. 
> 
> Not only that, but the chair of this Drafting Team chose to disregard the disagreement of 1/4 of the Drafting Team's individual members when he indicated that the group had reached consensus.  The Drafting Team did not reach consensus, but rather majority support. 
> 
> Additionally, there is very little evidence that the members of the Drafting Team considered the comments other then to ask each other whether anything they had read had changed their minds.
> 
> In the Words of Bill Drake: "this process has been end to end irregularity."
> 
> This motion is illegitimate and thus should not have been brought to a vote.  In such a circumstance I have no alternative but to abstain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>