AW: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Bill,
 
I hope it is not that complicated to explain and understand (see
comments inserted).
 


Regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 

 


  _____  

Von: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Juni 2010 08:16
An: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement


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.
 
[WUK: ]  It is more about the question of the council's competences.
According to the bylaws "The GNSO Council is responsible for managing
the policy development process 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. 

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?

[WUK: ]  There's no intention to permanently establish a drafting team.
But fixing the process "for all future AoC RT selections" appeared too
definitive with respect to a fast changing environment. The amendment
does not exclude the opportunity that all future AoC RTs would follow
this process.


 
Would much appreciate any help getting my head around this.

Thanks,

Bill