ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ispcp]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ispcp] ENC: Council Motions

  • To: Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf <jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ispcp] ENC: Council Motions
  • From: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 09:56:25 +0000
  • Cc: <ispcp@xxxxxxxxx>, <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linx.net; h= user-agent:message-id:references:in-reply-to:subject:from:date :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:mime-version:received :received:x-virus-scanned; s=dkim; t=1302256586; bh=Q4dnA0qdDl6W 5Vj0ITYJNHeB8kJIO1pknXrlbnge9y4=; b=GAuBxtCdFDQ69J5ESnySQoUJdQ9o Iq4UKY6nWKl1wcgUYxy0MAlZZyJ4S8QKPc/MxQ8++Pp9e3g9GvBtI475RWN6mV7X oOPag8L5pvwFyCjvTJOIFeWZ1q96qXubzbcja3HmDGLabJobdChHwUBeiNzXCvJW Idl4kI8jQfY7/KI=
  • In-reply-to: <00c001cbf55a$56eb15e0$04c141a0$@com.br>
  • List-id: ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <00c001cbf55a$56eb15e0$04c141a0$@com.br>
  • Sender: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.5.1

On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 16:30:55 -0300, Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf wrote:

Dear All,

I would like your comments on the RAA Amendment Motion below that
criticizes the Contracted parties Voting systematically as a block to
block any amendment to the RAA.

I'm inclined to vote for option B, but would like to hear comments.
Sorry for the short notice.


(The following is just my personal opinion)
To be honest, although I sympathise with the underlying sentiments I'm not entirely comfortable with either motion.
I'm not keen on the ISPCP voting for a motion that appears to assert that the ICANN multistakeholder process has irretrievably failed, as these appear motions to do. I'm also reluctant to accuse the Registrars of acting bad faith all along, in a formal motion.
I would prefer a motion that asserted our previous positions, noted that gNSO was an advisory Council to the Board, and stated that if the gNSO council is unable to reach a conclusion due to the sustained block by one particular community, the Board would be forced to take notice of the fact that the entire non-contracted community supports one approach.
This gets us to much the same place in terms of decision-making, but instead of saying the ICANN multistakeholder process has failed, asserts that it includes a conflict-resolver of last resort, namely the Board, warns the Registrars that they rely on the Board supporting them against the rest of the community united at their peril, and invites the Board to look behind 
the lack of a formal gNSO conclusion.
Of course, I recognise that there is no resolution to that effect on the table, and even if it were NCUC would be unlikely to support it. So I leave you with these comments and trust our leadership to make a judgement call on how best to proceed. 

Malcolm.
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>