[Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval

farzaneh badii farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
Tue Oct 11 19:59:27 UTC 2016


Thanks Steve.  I support sending the recommendations without the
travelogue.  I am not convinced it's necessary to add it. We just need to
say what we decided and what we recommend.

On 11 Oct 2016 9:39 p.m., "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

> Hi Steve,
>
> I regret that I do not agree with sending his report to Council this
> evening as proposed. Substantive matters relating to the report that
> arguably may be supported by a majority of group members are being
> discarded  without adequate discussion, and a travelogue has been produced
> that features arguments proposed by a small minority of members (1/3 at
> best) rather than that proposed by the large majority (2/3) of members.  As
> to the later, please note the following word totals:
>
> Who section:
>
> Portions supporting majority positions:  203 words  (29%)
> Portions supporting minority positions:  493 words  (71%)
>
> How section:
>
> Portions supporting majority positions:  122 words (34%)
> Portions supporting minority positions:  239 words (66%)
>
> Cumulative:
>
> Portions supporting majority positions:  732 words (69%)
> Portions supporting minority positions:  325 words (31%)
>
>
> The Chair has produced a report that best represents a minority report
> that acknowledges the majority position. This is compounded by presenting
> in the document a large chart, introduced by the Chair, that was an
> inconsequential part of discussions, receiving the support of only 2
> drafting team members.
>
> I understand that the nature of discussions my not result in equitable
> volume in a travelogue. That is why we have transcripts and recordings: so
> interested parties can take a look at the nature of discussions. That is
> NOT the purpose of a report that is supposed to report the findings of a
> working group to a commissioning body.
>
> David Maher’s position, represented nowhere in this report, during much of
> the discussion consisted of few words: “out of scope”. A true and accurate
> travelogue would have represented this view in parts of our discussion.
>
> As to a few specifics:
>
> 1. Any references to the views of individual constituencies and
> stakeholder groups must be removed.
>
> No member of this drafting team was appointed by a constituency or
> stakeholder group. We had a very long and somewhat contentious discussion
> on Council about the representation of this drafting team. Each one of us
> was appointed by an individual councilor with Council having the
> opportunity, which it did not use, to alter the composition of this Team to
> reflect the composition of the GNSO. Each member of this drafting team can
> act in accordance to his or her own wishes. As DT members were neither
> appointed nor nominated by their Constituency or Stakeholder group their
> views should be ascribed to them personally rather than to any group they
> may wish to be a part of. They simply were not appointed to this group in a
> representative capacity.
>
> 2. This paragraph is simply wrong:
>
> ‘Note: Three DT members (IPC, ISPCP, and BC) abstained from indicating
> approval of Council voting thresholds, as they do not support Council
> exercising any of the new powers by voting within the present House-bound
> structure.  Nonetheless, all DT members contributed to discussion and
> recommendations for voting thresholds by which GNSO Council should approve
> nominations and actions created under the new ICANN Bylaws.’
>
> I refer to the word abstain, which in GNSO Operating Procedures §4.5
> refers to instances where a Councilor does not vote on a particular matter
> or Motion before Council. The simple dictionary definition of abstain
> (Webster) consists of two definitional possibilities:
>
> 1. to choose not to do or have something, or
>            2.to choose not to vote
>
> The three DT members referenced did not abstain on matters before this
> Drafting Team. They voted on where to locate the powers we were charged to
> examine should be exercised and lost. They then participated fully in all
> discussions, including voting on all threshold issues. That is not
> abstention: that is full participation. That their full participation does
> not indicate a reversal of their views on the previous vote which they lost
> is quite obvious. One does not flow from the other. Nevertheless, I would
> not be opposed to a small statement indicating same.
>
>
> Let’s give Council what it asked for: an implementation plan. Towards that
> end:
>
> 1. I support sending the Council our recommendations stripped of the
> discussion. Recorded levels of support of every option, including all
> thresholds in which votes were taken, should be indicated.
>
> 2. Parties should be invited to submit minority or concurring reports, as
> indicated, to Council with the dicta currently contained in the proposed
> report and anything else they may wish to include for Council’s
> consideration. The current report is confusing for he uninitiated and reads
> more as a minority report acknowledging the majority position rather than
> as an accurate report of our implementation recommendations. That’s just
> not acceptable given our charge.
>
> I should also note that the response deadline for approval of this report
> is inadequate. This, in effect, is a consensus call and we simply have not
> had enough time to hear from all of our DT members, many of whom are not
> located in North America and have not had a chance to view the final
> proposed document.
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Ed Morris
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
> *Sent*: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:43 PM
> *To*: "gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
> *Cc*: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> *Subject*: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix
> -- final version for DT approval
>
> Have heard replies from Wolf-Ulrich, Amr, and Steve Metalitz so far, so
> let’s allow another hour and a half for others.
>
> Unless there are significant objections, we’ll send our reports to Council
> today at 20 UTC.
>
> If DT members have minor edits we can forward those to Council at any
> time.
>
>
> From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 11:52 AM
> To: "gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
> Cc: Yesim Nazlar <yesim.nazlar at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <
> gnso-secs at icann.org>
> Subject: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval
>
> Thanks to Steve, Darcy, Amr, and Matthew for providing edits to these
> docs.
>
> Here’s what I’ve done with the attached final docs:
>
> Accepted all of Darcy’s grammatical corrections in the matrix and report.
> (thank you!)
>
> As Amor noted, we did not describe DT discussion of how to meet undefined
> Bylaws thresholds for Section 17.3 and Annex A - Sec 3.2(f) regarding
> recall of a GNSO director.  I added to the report (page 2) and In the DT
> Recommendations column:
>
>
> 4. GNSO Procedures should define how GNSO Council meets two new thresholds
> described in the new Bylaws in these sections:
>
>  17.3 – Amending the CSC charter.  Bylaws require approval by a “simple
> majority of … GNSO Council”, which is not a defined GNSO threshold in
> Bylaws Section 11.3(i).
>
> Annex D, 3.2(f) - Removal of a GNSO Director.  Bylaws require approval by
> “a three-quarters majority”, which is not a defined GNSO threshold in
> Bylaws Section 11.3(i).   Five DT members believe that voting would occur
> only in the House that nominated the director, while other DT members said
> the entire GNSO should vote on this decision.
>
>
>
> While Darcy wanted to move the background paragraph to later in the doc, I
> am keen to keep it at top so that readers who are not familiar with this DT
> will understand what our recommendations are all about.  That background
> takes only 2 inches of space, so let’s please keep it at top of page 1.
>
> I attempted to reconcile different edit suggestions.    Added Amr’s edits
> on pages 3-4 to explain the majority’s rationale on why Council speaks for
> GNSO.  (Steve Metalitz agreed).  With those additions, I did not accept
> Matthew's desire to delete discussion about Council’s responsibility for
> non-policy matters.  Those paragraphs are not repetitive, and were an
> essential part of the evolution of our group’s discussion.  Thing is,
> readers are not going to go back to the call transcripts, so this
> “evolution” section is the place to describe what was considered (and
> rejected).
>
> Accepted Amr’s new text about Nominating committee reps on page 7.
>
> Matthew wanted to demote the note about 3 of 9 DT members abstaining, but
> this is essential to understand that recommendations did not reach a high
> level of consensus, and to explain why. This qualifier needs to precede the
> recommendations, in my view.
>
> My hope is that DT members have no objection to submitting these docs to
> Council today — in time for their Council meeting on Thursday.
>
> So, please indicate whether you have any objections by UTC today.
>
> Thanks again for your serious attention to this project.
>
> —Steve
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list
> Gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20161011/2b3914d7/attachment.html>


More information about the Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list