Re: AW: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Wolf-Ulrich,

On Jun 16, 2010, at 11:48 PM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> As I tried to explain, the amended motion does not preclude using the same 
> process after the next two RTs. But it doesn't cement it like some GNSO folks 
> were feeling before


A parallel small point, the unamended motion does not  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.

> 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.

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 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709 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.

Cheers,

Bill