Re: [council] AMENDMENT - Acceptance of the Report from the Bylaws Drafting Team
Hi, After consulting with colleagues, I’d like to offer amendments to this motion (attached). I believe them to be very lightweight changes, but hopefully will help keep the motion straight-forward and focused on the task at hand before the Council. I am happy to answer any questions on this, and hope the motioner/seconder will consider the amendments friendly. Thanks. Amr Attachment:
Bylaws DT Updated Motion - 7 November 2016[1] + edits AE.docx > On Nov 21, 2016, at 8:49 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi James, > > Thank you for this. It’s quite reassuring, and the accept vs. approve/adopt > terminology makes sense to me now. I won’t suggest any amendments to the > motion until I’ve had a chance to discuss this further with the NCSG. But > thanks again, James. Your responses were very helpful in helping me prep for > that discussion. > > Amr > >> On Nov 21, 2016, at 6:33 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Amr – >> >> Thanks for your comments, and you have indeed picked up on some of the items >> that were the subject of extensive discussions in Hyderabad. I’ll try to >> address them individually below. >> >> (1) Regarding the use of “divergent” – We were trying to capture the >> spectrum of views without undermining the majority position. Perhaps in >> doing so we have mis-appropriated some of the terms that are typically >> reserved for PDP working groups. If “divergent” is causing trouble, perhaps >> an equivalent (but less loaded) term can be used, such as “diverse views” or >> “contrary” or “dissimilar”. >> (2) This was also discussed in India, and the wording was changed to avoid >> confusion, as the GNSO does not “adopt” or “approve” changes to the bylaws >> resulting from the Final Report, but instead submits these to the Board for >> approval. But in practical terms, there doesn’t seem to be any material >> difference in the next steps whether the Council “approves” or “adopts” or >> “accepts” the recommendations >> (3) The review by ICANN legal was going to happen in any case (and as Sam >> Eisner reported to Council, is already underway). But some on Council >> wanted to explicitly acknowledge this in the motion. >> (4) We can replace “divergent”, as noted in Item (1) I’m not married to the >> term. But the key point of this resolution was to ensure that the normal / >> minimum comment period be extended to at least 40 days. >> >> I hope these address your concerns. If not, please respond or propose >> alternative language. >> >> Thanks— >> >> J. >> >> Thanks— >> J. >> >> On 11/21/16, 6:50 , "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Apologies for missing any discussions that I missed on this in Hyderabad, >> but wanted to offer my thoughts, as well as some questions before discussing >> this motion with the NCSG. Generally, I think this motion could be drafted >> far better. As is, I don’t plan on recommending that the NCSG vote against >> the motion, but I may recommend that at least one of our councillors attach >> a statement to the vote on this motion. Let me explain some of my specific >> concerns: >> >> 1) Whereas 3: >> >>> During the course of the DT’s work, strongly divergent views were expressed >>> on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the >>> production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and >> >> >> The use of divergent in this context, although accurate, could be >> misleading. It is true that there was disagreement on a key recommendation >> coming out of the DT, but “divergent” is somewhat of a technical term in the >> GNSO. This is because it is used to describe one of the WG consensus levels >> in the GNSO WG Guidelines >> (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf), >> and is described as "Divergence (also referred to as No Consensus) - a >> position where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but >> many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable >> differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a >> particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group >> agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless”. >> >> The first recommendation of the DT to assign the GNSO Council to act on >> behalf of the GNSO was given a “Strong support but significant opposition” >> designation as its consensus-level. As a member of the DT, I grudgingly >> supported this designation, as 3 of the 9 DT members were against this >> recommendation. That makes a third of the DT, and it seemed to me that this >> consensus level designation was a fair one. My reservation (which I did not >> voice) was that there was actually only one GNSO stakeholder group that >> opposed this recommendation, while the 3 others + NCA supported it. I’m not >> saying we need to revisit this now. However, there was no “divergence” in >> its technical sense on the DT. There was disagreement, which led to the >> “strong support but significant opposition”, although it could have arguably >> been designated as “Consensus” (not to be confused with “Full consensus”). >> >> 2) Resolved 1: >> >> Is there a reason why the GNSO Council is “accepting” the recommendations >> of the DT instead of “approving” it? This language was changed from the >> original motion, and I was curious what the significance is. In the past, I >> believe the GNSO Council has adopted WG final reports and recommendations. >> Since this is new to me, I would like to know if there is something I am >> missing. >> >> 3) Resolved 2: >> >>> The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for >>> any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures >>> and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. >>> The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed >>> modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report >>> their findings to the GNSO Council. >> >> >> My understanding is that ICANN Legal needs to evaluate any proposed >> modifications to the ICANN bylaws, however, I understand that the Council >> will also be asking them to evaluate some changes to the GNSO Operating >> Procedures that do not require bylaws amendments. Substantively, I have no >> objection to this, as I have said in the past. However, since this legal >> review was not one of the DT recommendations, I would have preferred to >> separate this issue from the motion relevant to the bylaws-DT. Anyway…, no >> biggie. >> >> 4) Resolved 4: >> >>> In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council >>> directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the >>> minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for >>> public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any >>> comments received will be given meaningful consideration. >> >> >> I find this resolved clause to be very strange. First…, again there is the >> use of the word “divergent”, which I believe should be replaced with >> something like “disagreement” or “lack of full consensus”. More importantly, >> the resolved clause attributes the Council’s decision to submit the new >> operating procedures to public comment to this divergence!! As is the case >> in the DT’s final report, it seems to me that this clause only serves to >> unnecessarily draw as much attention to the minority position beyond what is >> reasonable. The minority report attached to the DT’s final report is already >> mentioned in whereas clause 3, and holding public comment periods have been >> a long-standing practice when modifications to the GNSO Operating Procedures >> are being suggested, even when the WGs/Committees chartered by the Council >> make these suggestions with full consensus. Why is the public comment period >> here being attributed to the lack of consensus on the DT? >> >> It seems to me that there is a will to (to the extent possible) undermine >> the recommendations of the DT. This is not only evident in the motion, but >> even in the DT final report itself, where there is a great deal more >> emphasis on the minority position than is necessary. I’m curious on wether >> or not the motioner/seconder are open to more amendments to this motion. If >> so, I’d be happy to suggest some. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >>> On Nov 7, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@xxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> James, >>> >>> I do take those changes as friendly. >>> >>> Rubens >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 7, 2016, at 10:53 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> Councilors – >>>> >>>> Attached and copied below, please find a proposed amendment to my earlier >>>> motion referenced above, in accordance with our discussions during last >>>> night’s working session. >>>> >>>> As a seconder, I would ask Rubens Kuhl to confirm whether he takes these >>>> changes as friendly. >>>> Thank you, >>>> J >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. MOTION – Acceptance of the Report from the GNSO Bylaws >>>> Implementation Drafting Team and next steps >>>> (Motion deferred to 7 November 2016 from 13 October 2016) >>>> Made by: James Bladel >>>> Seconded by: Rubens Kuhl >>>> >>>> WHEREAS: >>>> 1. On 30 June 2016 the GNSO Council approved the creation of a >>>> Drafting Team (DT) that was to work with ICANN staff to “fully identify >>>> all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has >>>> under the revised Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of >>>> the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified >>>> structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or >>>> additional rights and responsibilities”; >>>> 2. In creating the DT, the GNSO Council requested that the DT >>>> provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan “which will have the >>>> consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed >>>> further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable >>>> effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN >>>> Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016”; >>>> 3. During the course of the DT’s work, strongly divergent views were >>>> expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, >>>> leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority >>>> report; and >>>> 4. The DT submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 12 >>>> October 2016 >>>> (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-en.pdf). >>>> The GNSO Council has reviewed the DT’s report. >>>> >>>> RESOLVED: >>>> >>>> 1. The GNSO Council accepts the recommendations in the DT’s report >>>> as submitted. >>>> 2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed >>>> language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO >>>> Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws >>>> pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal >>>> evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the >>>> post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council. >>>> 3. The GNSO Council requests that members of the DT make themselves >>>> available for consultation by ICANN Policy Staff as needed. >>>> 4. In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO >>>> Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including >>>> the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for >>>> public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any >>>> comments received will be given meaningful consideration. >>>> 5. As resolved previously, the GNSO Council intends to subject the >>>> adoption of the proposed modifications to existing procedures and/or ICANN >>>> Bylaws to a GNSO Supermajority vote. >>>> 6. The GNSO Council thanks the DT for its collaborative effort, >>>> especially in view the limited time frame available to the DT. >>>> >>>> <Bylaws DT Updated Motion - 7 November 2016[1].docx> >>> >> >> >> > >
|