ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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
Description: Microsoft Office

> 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>
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>