[Gnso-bylaws-dt] Another LAST CALL on revised DT report

matthew shears mshears at cdt.org
Wed Oct 12 08:00:29 UTC 2016


Support these suggested edits.  Thanks Darcy.

Matthew


On 12/10/2016 06:50, Darcy Southwell wrote:
>
> A few thoughts I have, and I’m sorry I didn’t have the opportunity to 
> share them earlier during everyone else’s commentary.
>
> On page 1, we call out “Strong support but significant opposition” 
> about Council speaking for the GNSO, but we don’t do the same for the 
> rest of the recommendations.  I second Amr’s suggestion that we call 
> out consensus level for each of our four recommendations.
>
> Regarding item 2 from below, I recommend a bit of a language change 
> shown in red below to more accurately reflect that this is an opinion 
> of certain DT members:
>
> “DT members from the Commercial Stakeholders Group said Council should 
> not decide non-policy matters, since ICANN Bylaws say Council is 
> “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO,” 
> and it is their position that this language  This implies that Council 
> is limited to policy and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and 
> Constituencies should handle other matters. On the other hand, some DT 
> members noted that there is no provision in the Bylaws for any group, 
> be it Council or the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to 
> assume these new powers and that there is currently no procedure for 
> GNSO Stakeholder Groups to handle these matters.”
>
> Regarding the yellow highlighting above, I remember our discussions on 
> this a bit differently.   I may be confusing it with another 
> discussion since the “some DT members” language doesn’t indicate which 
> of us we’re discussing, but I think many DT members said that the 
> “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO” 
> language doesn’t prohibit Council from working on non-policy matters.
>
> Do we have any feedback from David Maher to these various drafts/emails?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Darcy
>
> *From: *<gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Steve 
> DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
> *Date: *Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 4:01 PM
> *To: *matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>, Amr Elsadr 
> <aelsadr at egyptig.org>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, 
> "gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Gnso-bylaws-dt] Another LAST CALL on revised DT report
>
> In the interest of getting this done, I offer the attached revised 
> report, with these changes:
>
> 1. Made the page 1 edit proposed by Wolf-Ulrich in response to Amr, 
> and added level of consensus, as requested by Amr.  It now reads:
>
>     Note: Three DT members (IPC, ISPCP, and BC) do not support Council
>     exercising any of the new powers by voting within the present
>     House-bound structure.  The recommendation that Council would
>     speak for GNSO therefore has “Strong support but significant
>     opposition”.  Nonetheless, all DT members contributed to consensus
>     recommendations for voting thresholds on the assumption that GNSO
>     Council would approve nominations and actions created under the
>     new ICANN Bylaws.
>
> 2. On page 4 we follow Matthew’s request to shorten the “not 
> sustainable” point while retaining Amr's added counter-arguments.  It 
> now reads:
>
>     DT members from the Commercial Stakeholders Group said Council
>     should not decide non-policy matters, since ICANN Bylaws say
>     Council is “responsible for managing the policy development
>     process of the GNSO”.   This implies that Council is limited to
>     policy and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should
>     handle other matters.  On the other hand, some DT members noted
>     that there is no provision in the Bylaws for any group, be it
>     Council or the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to
>     assume these new powers and that there is currently no procedure
>     for GNSO Stakeholder Groups to handle these matters.
>
> For those of you counting words and looking for balance, that 
> paragraph is now 49 words for each point of view!
>
> So, are we good to go???   Please reply by 12 UTC on Wednesday 12-Oct.
>
> —Steve
>
> *From: *<gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Matthew Shears 
> <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
> *Date: *Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:36 PM
> *To: *Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>, 
> WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de 
> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>
> *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] Correction
>
> Hi Amr - I believe that I suggested more or less the same.   The
>
> repetition of the same perspective is unfortunate particularly as it is
>
> made very explicit up front and in the recommendations section.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 11/10/2016 21:04, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Speaking for myself, I have noted over previous versions of the
>     report that it seemed biased towards the minority view, which is a
>     bit odd. Perhaps less so now, but it does seem to me to still be
>     the case. For one thing, I suggested taking out redundant text
>     that repeats the same point in multiple parts of the report.
>
>     This is on page 3:
>
>     “Some DT members noted that the Bylaws describe the role of GNSO
>     Council to be “responsible for managing the policy development
>     process of the GNSO,” which does not cover the non-policy
>     decisions related to exercise of powers of the Empowered Community."
>
>     And this is on page 4:
>
>     "Some DT members noted that it was not sustainable for Council to
>     continue taking positions on non-policy matters, since the ICANN
>     Bylaws designate Council as “responsible for managing the policy
>     development process of the GNSO”.   This could imply that Council
>     is limited to policy matters and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and
>     Constituencies should handle other matters.”
>
>     I really don’t understand why they both need to be in the report
>     on two separate pages, when they pretty much say the exact same
>     thing. I already asked for the section on page 4 to be removed. Is
>     there a reason that I am missing to explain it wasn’t?
>
>     Thanks.
>
> *From: *Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org 
> <mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>>
> *Date: *Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:21 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
>
> 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 oppositio*n - 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).
>
> _______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing 
> list Gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org 
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt
>

-- 
--------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-bylaws-dt/attachments/20161012/ed560666/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list