<<<
Chronological Index
>>>
Thread Index
>>>
Re: AW: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement
- To: <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: AW: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement
- From: "Mary Wong" <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:38:46 -0400
- Cc: <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <4C196E520200005B00058E3F@mail.piercelaw.edu> <4C196E960200005B00058E43@mail.piercelaw.edu>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18928"></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Tahoma; WORD-WRAP: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<DIV>FWIW I agree with Bill and Caroline that the motion, as it stands (or is
that stood?) does NOT prevent the Council from proposing/supporting/endorsing a
different process for future RTs. What it seems to me to do is to endorse a
baseline/default starting point that has the benefit of being uniform,
clear and resulting from the thoughtful efforts of the DT (on which all SGs
were represented).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I find it somewhat ironic - and perhaps a testimony to those who have
mentioned elsewhere that the question of what we as Councillors are meant to do
or be - that the question of whether (and to what extent) the Council is acting
as a "managerial" versus a legislative top-down body in the new GNSO
environment seems to be arising in various contexts recently. Regardless, I'm
having a bit of a hard time believing that Councillors elected by their
SGs would not do their best to fully represent that SG's interests, while
respecting the role of the Council and the need for consensus among the whole
ICANN community (even if this means, as is often the case, questioning or
proposing amendments to motions, as happened here. I fully believe that the
differences of opinion we are seeing on this issue is the result of various
Councillors balancing the demands and needs of their particular
SGs/constituencies with the overall effect to the community and the work of the
Cou</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I understand that this may be more difficult - depending on the issue, for
instance - for certain SGs at certain points in time. However, and in this
particular context, I'm inclined to give greater weight to the deliberations
and recommendations of the DT, especially as it was a broadly representative
team and it remains open to us at a future date to require and/or justify
a different process.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Cheers</DIV>
<DIV>Mary</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#800080>Mary W S Wong</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV>Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs</DIV>
<DIV>Franklin Pierce Law Center</DIV>
<DIV>Two White Street</DIV>
<DIV>Concord, NH 03301</DIV>
<DIV>USA</DIV>
<DIV>Email: <A href="mailto:mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A></DIV>
<DIV>Phone: 1-603-513-5143</DIV>
<DIV>Webpage: <A
href="http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php";>http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php</A></DIV>
<DIV>Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: <A
href="http://ssrn.com/author=437584";>http://ssrn.com/author=437584</A></DIV><BR><BR>>>>
</DIV>
<TABLE style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 15px; FONT-SIZE: 1em" border=0
bgColor=#f3f3f3>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV style="BORDER-LEFT: #050505 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 7px">
<TABLE style="FONT: 8pt Tahoma" bgColor=#f3f3f3>
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>From: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx></TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>To:</STRONG></TD>
<TD><KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx></TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>CC:</STRONG></TD>
<TD><cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>,
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx></TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>Date: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>6/16/2010 6:43 PM</TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>Subject: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>Re: AW: [council] Motion to approve AOC
endorsement</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<DIV>Hi Wolf-Ulrich,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>On Jun 16, 2010, at 11:48 PM, <<A
href="mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx";>KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx</A>> wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN style="WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none;
TEXT-INDENT: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; FONT: medium Arial; WHITE-SPACE:
normal; ORPHANS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px;
-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px" class=Apple-style-span>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" lang=EN-US vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=993223521-16062010><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>As I tried to explain, the amended motion
does <U>not</U> preclude using the same process after the next two
RTs. But it doesn't cement it like some GNSO folks were feeling
before</FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>A parallel small point, the unamended motion does
<U>not</U> preclude the Council revisiting the process after the
next two RTs if issues are identified that merit tweak. No cement or
other building materials bind us to follow this or any other process we don't
prefer.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN style="WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none;
TEXT-INDENT: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; FONT: medium Arial; WHITE-SPACE:
normal; ORPHANS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px;
-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px" class=Apple-style-span>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" lang=EN-US vlink="purple" link="blue">
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr>
<DIV style="page: Section1" class=Section1>
<DIV style="Z-INDEX: auto; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; POSITION: static;
BORDER-LEFT: blue 1.5pt solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt;
PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none;
PADDING-TOP: 0in">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif;
FONT-SIZE: 12pt">This I guess is consistent with Kristina's earlier comments
that Council " has been greatly restricted in the restructuring and
the initially proposed mechanism goes beyond that role," and that "having a
slightly more complicated process at the SG level is far preferable to having
the Council take on an SG role and make nominations independent of the
community." But per previous I don't quite get the notion that elected
representatives of SGs working together in Council are somehow separate from
and would be acting above/independent of SGs in voting on endorsements.
Does that only hold here, or is it true of any and all Council decisions?
If we adopt this language, are we collectively establishing the premise
that Council is not a representative body that can act on behalf of its
constituents? I'd think it important to be clear what we're saying here.
I understand CSG wants to talk about this Saturday in the non-contracted
house meeting, which will presumably help, but it seems like a conversation for
the wider Council and community too if for no other reason than the Council (?)
will have to vote on it.<BR><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial, sans-serif; COLOR:
blue; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif;
FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial, sans-serif; COLOR: blue;
FONT-SIZE: 10pt">[WUK: ] </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR:
blue"> </SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial, sans-serif; COLOR: blue;
FONT-SIZE: 10pt">It is more about the question of the council's competences.
According to the bylaws "</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: blue">The GNSO Council is
responsible for<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><U>managing the
policy development process</U><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>of
the GNSO". Since the activities around the AoC could be seen as lying outside
these competences it is advisable to ascertain the GNSO as a whole endorses the
process. In other words: where the council competences are not in question we
won't have such a
discussion.</SPAN></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Determining whether the GNSO as a whole supports or opposes a
particular decision on our plate would be an interesting new requirement for
Council action. We could, for example, henceforth require a consultation
and consensus formation on <A
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709";>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709</A>
before taking any action. I'm sure there are some folks there who'd like
to weigh in. But in lieu of such a requirement, Council representatives
act in accordance with the norms and customs of their respective communities
and of the democratically elected Council. An interesting question then
is whether other SGs and the Council as a whole should set aside that approach,
redefine its role, and base its actions on any one SG's internal norms and
dynamics. I'm open to persuasion, but a priori this seems like an unusual
foundation for collective action.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Cheers,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Bill<BR><BR></DIV></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR>
<div>
<br>
<a href="http://www.piercelaw.edu/";><img
src="cid:PAMBLSSBCMMD.affiliationlogo.jpg" border="0" alt="Pierce Law |
University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership">
</a> </div>
</BODY></HTML>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>>
Thread Index
>>>
|