[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