Re: [council] IGO/RC motion

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 24-Jul-14 00:04, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> We continually say that the GNSO Council should not be the policy making
> body, but WG are where the substantive discussions should take place.
> Given that, I do not agree that we should vet the detailed proposal
> before passing it to the WG. We should pass it to them with no comment
> and let them have the in depth conversations on the merits. Then the
> Council can agree or disagree with the recommendations they make (either
> way), along with their rationale.

I agree with you in principle on this.

The problem is I do not believe that this is what the rule we are
working under says.  My interpretation of the rule and on of the
clarification we got is that we have to. at least provisionally, approve
the amendment we send them to reconsider.

> 
> BTW, I earlier, you mentioned that an NCSG position was that whatever we
> give IGOs, we should give INGOs. The ALAC was an early advocate of INGO
> protections and I think it would likely agree with you in this case. I
> would support incorporating that into anything we pass to the WG.

My interpretation of the rule we are working under, does not allow the
the reopened WG to do anything more that agree or disagree with the
proposed amendments.  I do not think the reopened group has the option
to change the proposed amendments.

A different rule might allow that, but in this case, I think the rule
this is being presented under would not allow that.  If we wanted that,
we would need to change the amendments before sending them.

avri