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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Bill,
 
following the NCPH discussion on the topic: could you now accept the
amendment as friendly?
 


Regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 

 


________________________________

        Von: Mary Wong [mailto:MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. Juni 2010 06:39
        An: william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
        Cc: rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx
        Betreff: Re: AW: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement
        
        
        FWIW I agree with Bill and Caroline that the motion, as it
stands (or is that stood?) does NOT prevent the Council from
proposing/supporting/endorsing a different process for future RTs. What
it seems to me to do is to endorse a baseline/default starting point
that has the benefit of being uniform, clear and resulting from the
thoughtful efforts of the DT (on which all SGs were represented).
         
        I find it somewhat ironic - and perhaps a testimony to those who
have mentioned elsewhere that the question of what we as Councillors are
meant to do or be - that the question of whether (and to what extent)
the Council is acting as a "managerial" versus a legislative top-down
body in the new GNSO environment seems to be arising in various contexts
recently. Regardless, I'm having a bit of a hard time believing that
Councillors elected by their SGs would not do their best to fully
represent that SG's interests, while respecting the role of the Council
and the need for consensus among the whole ICANN community (even if this
means, as is often the case, questioning or proposing amendments to
motions, as happened here. I fully believe that the differences of
opinion we are seeing on this issue is the result of various Councillors
balancing the demands and needs of their particular SGs/constituencies
with the overall effect to the community and the work of the Cou
         
        I understand that this may be more difficult - depending on the
issue, for instance - for certain SGs at certain points in time.
However, and in this particular context, I'm inclined to give greater
weight to the deliberations and recommendations of the DT, especially as
it was a broadly representative team and it remains open to us at a
future date to require and/or justify a different process.
         
        Cheers
        Mary
         
        Mary W S Wong
        Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
        Franklin Pierce Law Center
        Two White Street
        Concord, NH 03301
        USA
        Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Phone: 1-603-513-5143
        Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
        Selected writings available on the Social Science Research
Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584


        >>> 
From:   William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>      
To:      <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>   
CC:      <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>,
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>        
Date:   6/16/2010 6:43 PM       
Subject:        Re: AW: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement     
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




          <http://www.piercelaw.edu/>