RE: [Bayesian] Re: [ispcp] ENC: Council Motions

["Tony Holmes" <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Malcolm/All

Thanks for your comments. I agree with many of the points you make but we're in a difficult situation here. Historically in cases like this where there is a stand-off between parties in the GNSO the Board choose not to act. In this case that means our concerns wouldn't get addressed. If the motion helps to change that then I don't think anyone could say the multi-stakeholder process has failed. Just left to the Board to decide whether to engage, without this motion being passed would probably result in no further action and indeed claims could then be made that the process fails to put in place the required checks that ensure an open, competitive, environment built on the multi-stakeholder process.

That said, the issues you raise are cause for concern and the wording could certainly be improved, although we may be too late.

Jaime/Wolf-Ulrich - Is there still a possibility to propose  'friendly' amendments to this text?

Tony



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty
Sent: 08 April 2011 10:56
To: Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf
Cc: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx; tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Bayesian] Re: [ispcp] ENC: Council Motions


 On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 16:30:55 -0300, Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I would like your comments on the RAA Amendment Motion below that 
> criticizes the Contracted parties Voting systematically as a block to 
> block any amendment to the RAA.
>
> I'm inclined to vote for option B, but would like to hear comments.
> Sorry for the short notice.

 (The following is just my personal opinion)

 To be honest, although I sympathise with the underlying sentiments I'm  not entirely comfortable with either motion.

 I'm not keen on the ISPCP voting for a motion that appears to assert  that the ICANN multistakeholder process has irretrievably failed,  as these appear motions to do. I'm also reluctant to accuse the  Registrars of acting bad faith all along, in a formal motion.

 I would prefer a motion that asserted our previous positions, noted  that gNSO was an advisory Council to the Board, and stated  that if the gNSO council is unable to reach a conclusion due to the  sustained block by one particular community, the Board would  be forced to take notice of the fact that the entire non-contracted  community supports one approach.

 This gets us to much the same place in terms of decision-making, but  instead of saying the ICANN multistakeholder process  has failed, asserts that it includes a conflict-resolver of last  resort, namely the Board, warns the Registrars that they  rely on the Board supporting them against the rest of the community  united at their peril, and invites the Board to look behind  the lack of a formal gNSO conclusion.

 Of course, I recognise that there is no resolution to that effect on  the table, and even if it were NCUC would be unlikely to support it.
 So I leave you with these comments and trust our leadership to make a  judgement call on how best to proceed.

 Malcolm.