Re: [council] Motion re the report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team
Thanks so much for this comment Amr, with which I absolutely agree. May I add that I think the timing of this missive is unacceptable. Having just made the comment yesterday afternoon at the GNSO "Futures" working group that the workload is/is becoming outrageous, let me reiterate that I don't expect to have to respond to substantive items like this at 3 o'clock in the morning on the day of our public meeting. Doing the work once ought to be enough, Amr's proposal is a very sensible one. Stephanie Perrin On 2016-11-03 16:36, Amr Elsadr wrote: 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. AmrOn 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>
|