<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Motion re the report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team
- To: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Motion re the report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team
- From: <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 21:14:52 -0700
- Cc: "GNSO council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO secretariat" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Workspace Webmail 6.5.4
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>Hi Amr,</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for your note.
You say something very interesting, namely "<span style="">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." The point of the minority report is that it
actually is the case that the DT did not follow the instructions. Instead
of coming back with recommendations based upon how the new Bylaws are actually
written, much of the Report simply boils down to inserting the word "Council"
before "GNSO" wherever that it suits the majority. This, of course, is a
novel reading and undoes quite a bit of Workstream 1 which was designed to
ensure that all members of the Empowered Community are empowered, not just a
lucky few.</span></div><div><span style=""><br></span><span style="font-size:
10pt;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:
10pt;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Given the novel
reading of the Bylaws required to approve the Report, what is the objection to
seeking advice from ICANN Legal? Is the majority is concerned that ICANN
Legal will come back and make it clear that the novel reading is inappropriate?
If so, then it seems to me that it is extra important to have ICANN Legal
look this over before we leap. Can you please explain the hesitancy to
have ICANN's lawyers look at this?</span></div><div><span
style=""><br></span></div><div><span style="">Best,</span></div><div><span
style="">Paul</span></div><div><span style=""><br></span></div><div><span
style=""><br></span></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid
blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black;
font-family:verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: Re: [council] Motion re the report from the GNSO Bylaws<br>
Implementation Drafting Team<br>
From: Amr Elsadr <<a
href="mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx";>aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Date: Thu, November 03, 2016 1:36 pm<br>
To: WUKnoben <<a
href="mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx";>wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Cc: GNSO council <<a
href="mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>>,
GNSO secretariat<br>
<<a
href="mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
Amr<br>
<br>
> On Nov 3, 2016, at 3:22 PM, WUKnoben <<a
href="mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx";>wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>>
wrote:<br>
> <br>
> All,<br>
> <br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> Best regards<br>
> <br>
> Wolf-Ulrich<br>
> <br>
> <amendment to motion re GNSO-DT report on bylaws <a
href="http://implementation.docx";>implementation.docx</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|