[Bayesian] Re: [ispcp] ENC: Council Motions

[Malcolm Hutty]

 On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 16:30:55 -0300, Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I would like your comments on the RAA Amendment Motion below that
> criticizes the Contracted parties Voting systematically as a block to
> block any amendment to the RAA.
>
> I'm inclined to vote for option B, but would like to hear comments.
> Sorry for the short notice.

 (The following is just my personal opinion)

 To be honest, although I sympathise with the underlying sentiments I'm 
 not entirely comfortable with either motion.

 I'm not keen on the ISPCP voting for a motion that appears to assert 
 that the ICANN multistakeholder process has irretrievably failed,
 as these appear motions to do. I'm also reluctant to accuse the 
 Registrars of acting bad faith all along, in a formal motion.

 I would prefer a motion that asserted our previous positions, noted 
 that gNSO was an advisory Council to the Board, and stated
 that if the gNSO council is unable to reach a conclusion due to the 
 sustained block by one particular community, the Board would
 be forced to take notice of the fact that the entire non-contracted 
 community supports one approach.

 This gets us to much the same place in terms of decision-making, but 
 instead of saying the ICANN multistakeholder process
 has failed, asserts that it includes a conflict-resolver of last 
 resort, namely the Board, warns the Registrars that they
 rely on the Board supporting them against the rest of the community 
 united at their peril, and invites the Board to look behind
 the lack of a formal gNSO conclusion.

 Of course, I recognise that there is no resolution to that effect on 
 the table, and even if it were NCUC would be unlikely to support it.
 So I leave you with these comments and trust our leadership to make a 
 judgement call on how best to proceed.

 Malcolm.