Re: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

On Jun 15, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Thank you very much for the very clear and precise red-line version Wolf and 
> thanks also for including my suggested amendment.
>  
> Bill/ Caroline,
>  
> Do you accept these amendments as friendly?

> 

As I've said I don't particularly see limiting which candidates we can talk 
about in which order as an improvement, but since the point has elicited little 
comment here I'm guessing nobody else is too concerned and I should let it go.  
And I like the addition of the Chuck clause, "SG’s should only propose 
additional candidates that are of a different geographical location or gender 
than their primary candidate."  But even so, before saying whether I accept the 
amendment as friendly, I'd like to understand it, and would appreciate 
clarification from CSG on the following two points:

First, the amendment changes 
* "the GNSO Council formed a drafting team" to "the GNSO formed..." 
* "GNSO Council endorsements" to "GNSO endorsements" and
* "the GNSO Council desires to adopt the AOC-RR Drafting Team proposed process" 
to "the GNSO desires.."

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.

Second, particularly as chair of the drafting team, I would like to understand 
what is envisioned by striking "for all future AOC review team selections" and 
limiting the mechanism to just the pending WHOIS and SSR, since this is 
contrary to the prior mandate from, um, the Council.  Is the idea that the 
drafting team will become a permanent body and we will have to reword things 
and adopt fresh processes and motions for each RT cycle?  How for example might 
future language be different from what we have on the table now?

Would much appreciate any help getting my head around this.

Thanks,

Bill