<<<
Chronological Index
>>>
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement
Thank you Bill for responding. We will now consider the amendment as
unfriendly and will vote on it before we vote on the motion.
Chuck
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 1:08 PM
To: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: GNSO Council List; Gomes, Chuck
Subject: Re: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement
Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
I was just about to come back to this, you beat me to the punch. Having
had the opportunity yesterday to hear a bit more on the thinking, I
guess I'm still of the view I shared on the last council call, since:
1. We had a drafting team comprising reps of all SGs that worked
collaboratively and agreed a text. This was on the table for some time
internally and then in the Council before concerns were expressed just
prior to consideration of the motion. IMO, the DT having done what was
asked of it, its text deserves a chance to be voted on.
2. I still don't see why it is necessary to codify the sequence in
which Councilors may discuss possible additional diversity endorsements,
or to limit the conditions under which they may discuss the whole pool
of applicants. I trust Councilors to of course talk first about
candidates for whom SGs have expressed preferences, I can't imagine the
conversation in which they'd refuse to.
3. The drafting team was mandated to propose a process that could be
used for RT endorsements going forward. If subsequent experience
suggests that it'd make sense to revisit and tweak the process, we would
do that. I don't see why we should assume at the front end that there
will be problems and hence limit our agreement to just the next two RTs.
4. As discussed in today's meeting, it has become clear in recent days
that there a different views in play about the nature and proper role of
the Council. To the extent that the amendment is based one particular
view, it seems premature to set that philosophical baseline in this
instance. We need to have a broader and more probing discussion of this
somewhere down the line and see if we can come to some shared
understanding.
So let's treat it as unfriendly and whatever Councilors decide in their
SG representative capacities, fine.
Cheers,
Bill
On Jun 20, 2010, at 6:07 PM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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
<IMAGE.jpg> <http://www.piercelaw.edu/>
***********************************************************
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
***********************************************************
<<<
Chronological Index
>>>
Thread Index
>>>
|