Re: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It would be helpful to know if any other members of the drafting team have 
input either way?  The process and motion were the products of a collective 
endeavor....

Bill


On Jun 16, 2010, at 3:36 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I don't see why we need to define for every RT a new process, it is quite 
> weird to do that when in the same time we are trying to handle with important 
> time constraints all the ongoing PDP and it is against any logic ( we can be 
> flexible but there is time when we need a stable solution IMHO). maybe the 
> current process is not the best for some people but changing it for each RT 
> won't necessarily make it better. 
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 2010/6/16 <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
> 
> 
> 

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
***********************************************************