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

Tue Oct 11 21:21:27 UTC 2016

Amr —

Good point about Consensus level, and I thought a lot about that.   GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf>), at Section 3.6, suggests two possible designations for our recommendations:
Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree.

 Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it.

I’d say we had Strong support but significant opposition on the Who and How questions described in the Evolution section of our report.

And for the recommendations on pages 1-2, I’d say we had Consensus — but qualified by the abstention of CSG reps.

As to whether we drop any discussion of how the DT came to its recommendation, that’s against the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf>).  Specifically:

  1.  In cases of Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, an effort should be made to document that variance in viewpoint and to present any Minority View recommendations that may have been made. Documentation of Minority View recommendations normally depends on text offered by the proponent(s). In all cases of Divergence, the WG Chair should encourage the submission of minority viewpoint(s).

From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 4:11 PM
To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval

Hi again,

It may also be helpful to readers of our report to include the consensus level on each of the recommendations the DT has made to the recommendations themselves. This is not a requirement, but is pretty standard practice on GNSO PDP WGs.

Thanks.

Amr

On Oct 11, 2016, at 10:37 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
Hi,
Commenting on a specific point Ed raised:
On Oct 11, 2016, at 10:38 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at TOAST.NET<mailto:egmorris1 at TOAST.NET>> wrote:
[SNIP]
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.
I’m concerned that the disagreement here is just on wording, not on substance. Abstentions hold specific meaning in Council voting. To my knowledge, I have no recollection of GNSO WG members abstaining on positions in the past. They either support or do not support them. “abstained from indicating approval” to me, sounds like they did not support, which is true. The follow-up sentence to this beginning with “Nonetheless, all DT members…,” helps to clarify this. A simple solution to this may be to replace “abstained from indicating approval” to something like “reject”.
Additionally, my recollection is that the three DT members rejected the Council exercising the new powers on behalf of the GNSO, but this section says that they rejected (or abstained from indicating approval) the Council voting thresholds, which is not the same thing. If I’m not mistaken, the decision on “who” would exercise the powers on behalf of the GNSO was made prior to beginning discussions on the thresholds at all. At that point, we had only generally said that we could create new thresholds, if deemed necessary.
Thanks.
Amr
_______________________________________________
Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list
Gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt

_______________________________________________
Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list
Gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org<mailto: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/20161011/66858316/attachment.html>