Re: [council] Motion re the report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I regret that I cannot join you all in Hyderabad, but wanted to express my 
disagreement with the suggested amendment to the motion in question nonetheless.

The purpose of the suggested amendment to only “accept” and not “approve" the 
recommendations of the DT until a legal review is conducted and given the 
opportunity to advise the Council to overrule the DT’s consensus 
recommendations, in favor of those of the minority. This notion conflicts with 
the bottom-up process that the Council manages. If the Council believes that 
the DT did not act in accordance with the instructions it received in the 
motion that created it, then perhaps the CSG may have reason to request that 
the DT report and recommendations not be approved/adopted. That is not the 
case, however.

For now, I suggest that the Council adopts the DT recommendations as delivered, 
and proceeds to instruct ICANN staff to draft updated GNSO operating 
procedures, and post them for public comment as initially intended. If the CSG 
would like a discussion on the DT’s minority report to take place, then I 
suggest it initiates one that does not interfere with the DT’s recommendations.

I will note that as a member of the DT, I had suggested on multiple occasions 
that issues where there was room for more discussion should be identified in 
the report with a recommendation for another group to pick up the work where 
the DT left off. I even suggested that the GNSO Review WG be singled out as a 
possible candidate group to do this — seeing that apart from working with staff 
to implement the GNSO Review, this WG has taken over the mandate of the SCI. 
There was little to no support on the DT to do this, so the matter was settled 
by the DT.

And for the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting that the Council silences 
the concerns of the CSG reflected in the minority statement, but ask that any 
follow up to those concerns not be associated with the motion to adopt the DT’s 
report and recommendations. That work’s already been done, the minority view 
was documented and published along with everything else, and the Council should 
not be confused as to wether or not it should adopt the recommendations.

I ask that the motioner and seconder not accept this amendment as friendly, and 
invite the CSG to bring this up as a discussion item on the Council’ls 
agenda/email list during or after Hyderabad.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Nov 3, 2016, at 3:22 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> All,
>  
> on behalf of the Commercial Stakeholder Group I’d like to introduce the 
> amendment attached. It should be discussed during the course of the GNSO 
> meetings and the public GNSO council meeting in Hyderabad.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> <amendment to motion re GNSO-DT report on bylaws implementation.docx>