<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>
<div>Amr — </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Good point about Consensus level, and I thought a lot about that. GNSO Working Group Guidelines (<a href="https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf">link</a>), at Section 3.6, suggests two possible designations for our
recommendations:</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;">
<div><b>Consensus</b> - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b> Strong support but significant oppositio</b>n - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>I’d say we had <b>Strong support but significant opposition</b> on the <u>Who</u> and
<u>How</u> questions described in the Evolution section of our report.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And for the recommendations on pages 1-2, I’d say we had <b>Consensus</b> — but qualified by the abstention of CSG reps. </div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;">
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div>As to whether we drop any discussion of how the DT came to its recommendation, that’s against the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (<a href="https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf">link</a>). Specifically:</div>
<div>
<div class="page" title="Page 9">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<ol start="0" style="list-style-type: none;">
<li>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">In cases of </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: TimesNewRomanPS; font-weight: 700;">Consensus</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">, </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: TimesNewRomanPS; font-weight: 700;">Strong
support but significant opposition</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">, and </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: TimesNewRomanPS; font-weight: 700;">No Consensus</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">,
an effort should be made to document that variance in viewpoint and to present any </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: TimesNewRomanPS; font-weight: 700;">Minority View </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">recommendations
that may have been made. Documentation of </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: TimesNewRomanPS; font-weight: 700;">Minority View </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">recommendations normally depends on text offered
by the proponent(s). In all cases of </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: TimesNewRomanPS; font-weight: 700;">Divergence, </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">the WG Chair should encourage the submission of minority
viewpoint(s). </span></p>
</li></ol>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div id="MAC_OUTLOOK_SIGNATURE"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:12pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span><<a href="mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org">gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <<a href="mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org">aelsadr@egyptig.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 4:11 PM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Amr Elsadr <<a href="mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org">aelsadr@egyptig.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>"<a href="mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org">gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org">gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Hi again,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Amr</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;">
<div>On Oct 11, 2016, at 10:37 PM, Amr Elsadr <<a href="mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org">aelsadr@egyptig.org</a>> wrote:</div>
<div></div>
<div>Hi,</div>
<div></div>
<div>Commenting on a specific point Ed raised:</div>
<div></div>
<blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;">
<div>On Oct 11, 2016, at 10:38 PM, Edward Morris <<a href="mailto:egmorris1@TOAST.NET">egmorris1@TOAST.NET</a>> wrote:</div>
<div></div>
</blockquote>
<div></div>
<div>[SNIP]</div>
<div></div>
<blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;">
<div>2. This paragraph is simply wrong:</div>
<div></div>
<div>‘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.’</div>
<div></div>
<div>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:</div>
<div></div>
<div>1. to choose not to do or have something, or</div>
<div> 2.to choose not to vote</div>
<div></div>
<div>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.</div>
</blockquote>
<div></div>
<div>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”.</div>
<div></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div></div>
<div>Thanks.</div>
<div></div>
<div>Amr</div>
<div>_______________________________________________</div>
<div>Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list</div>
<div><a href="mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org">Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org</a></div>
<div><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt</a></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>_______________________________________________</div>
<div>Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list</div>
<div><a href="mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org">Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org</a></div>
<div><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</body>
</html>