<div dir="ltr">Hi,<div><br></div><div>I don't see why we need to define for every RT a new process, it is quite weird to do that when in the same time we are trying to handle with important time constraints all the ongoing PDP and it is against any logic ( we can be flexible but there is time when we need a stable solution IMHO). maybe the current process is not the best for some people but changing it for each RT won't necessarily make it better. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Rafik<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/6/16 <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de">KnobenW@telekom.de</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2">Bill,</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2">I hope it is not that complicated to explain and
understand (see comments inserted).</font></span></div>
<div> </div><br>
<p><span lang="de"><font face="Courier New" size="2">Regards</font></span> <br><span lang="de"><font face="Courier New" size="2">Wolf-Ulrich</font></span> </p>
<div> </div><br>
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right:0px">
<div lang="de" dir="ltr" align="left">
<hr>
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>Von:</b> William Drake
[mailto:<a href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch" target="_blank">william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch</a>] <br><b>Gesendet:</b> Mittwoch, 16.
Juni 2010 08:16<br><b>An:</b> Gomes, Chuck<br><b>Cc:</b> Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich;
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br><b>Betreff:</b> Re: [council] Motion to approve AOC
endorsement<br></font><br></div>
<div></div>Hi
<div><div class="im"><br>
<div>
<div>On Jun 15, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:</div><br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="word-spacing:0px;font:medium Arial;text-transform:none;text-indent:0px;white-space:normal;letter-spacing:normal;border-collapse:separate">
<div lang="EN-US" vlink="purple" link="blue">
<div>
<div style="font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri, sans-serif">Thank
you very much for the very clear and precise red-line version Wolf and
thanks also for including my suggested amendment.</span></div>
<div style="font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"></span></div>
<div style="font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri, sans-serif">Bill/
Caroline,</span></div>
<div style="font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"></span></div>
<div style="font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri, sans-serif">Do
you accept these amendments as
friendly?</span></div></div></div></span></blockquote><br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="word-spacing:0px;font:medium Arial;text-transform:none;text-indent:0px;white-space:normal;letter-spacing:normal;border-collapse:separate">
<div lang="EN-US" vlink="purple" link="blue">
<div>
<div style="font-size:12pt;margin:0in 0in 0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"></span></div></div></div></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div>As I've said I don't particularly see limiting which candidates we can
talk about in which order as an improvement, but since the point has elicited
little comment here I'm guessing nobody else is too concerned and I should let
it go. And I like the addition of the Chuck clause, "SG’s should
only propose additional candidates that are of a different geographical
location or gender than their primary candidate." But even so,
before saying whether I accept the amendment as friendly, I'd like to
understand it, and would appreciate clarification from CSG on the following
two points:</div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"></font><br></div>
<div>First, the amendment changes </div>
<div>* "the GNSO Council formed a drafting team" to "the GNSO
formed..." </div>
<div>* "GNSO Council endorsements" to "GNSO endorsements" and</div>
<div>* "the GNSO Council desires to adopt the AOC-RR Drafting Team proposed
process" to "the GNSO desires.."</div>
<div><br></div>
</div><div><div class="im">This I guess is consistent with Kristina's earlier comments
that Council " has been greatly restricted in the restructuring and
the initially proposed mechanism goes beyond that role," and that "having a
slightly more complicated process at the SG level is far preferable to having
the Council take on an SG role and make nominations independent of the
community." But per previous I don't quite get the notion that elected
representatives of SGs working together in Council are somehow separate from
and would be acting above/independent of SGs in voting on endorsements.
Does that only hold here, or is it true of any and all Council
decisions? If we adopt this language, are we collectively establishing
the premise that Council is not a representative body that can act on behalf
of its constituents? I'd think it important to be clear what we're
saying here. I understand CSG wants to talk about this Saturday in the
non-contracted house meeting, which will presumably help, but it seems like a
conversation for the wider Council and community too if for no other reason
than the Council (?) will have to vote on it.<br><span><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"> </font></span><br></div><font color="#0000ff"><span><font face="Arial" size="2">[WUK:
] </font></span><span> <font face="Arial" size="2">It is more about the question of the council's competences. According
to the bylaws "<font face="Times New Roman" size="3">The GNSO Council is
responsible for <u>managing the policy development process</u> of the GNSO".
Since the activities around the AoC could be seen as lying outside these
competences it is advisable to ascertain the GNSO as a whole endorses the
process. In other words: where the council competences are not in question we
won't have such a discussion. </font></font></span></font></div><div class="im">
<div><br></div>
<div>Second, particularly as chair of the drafting team, I would like to
understand what is envisioned by striking "for all future AOC review
team selections" and limiting the mechanism to just the pending WHOIS and
SSR, since this is contrary to the prior mandate from, um, the Council.
Is the idea that the drafting team will become a permanent body and we
will have to reword things and adopt fresh processes and motions for each RT
cycle? How for example might future language be different from what we
have on the table now?<br><span><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"></font></span></div>
</div><div><span><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2">[WUK: ] There's no intention to permanently establish a
drafting team. But fixing the process "for all future AoC RT selections"
appeared too definitive with respect to a fast changing environment.
The amendment does not exclude the opportunity that all future AoC RTs would
follow this process.</font></span></div><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"></font></div><div class="im">
<div><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"></font><br> </div>
<div>
<div>Would much appreciate any help getting my head around this.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Bill</div>
<div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br></div></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>