[council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement

Wed Jun 16 17:59:59 UTC 2010

I support. 

________________________________

	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
	Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 1:46 PM
	To: Rafik Dammak
	Cc: KnobenW at telekom.de; cgomes at verisign.com;
council at gnso.icann.org
	Subject: Re: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement

	It would be helpful to know if any other members of the drafting
team have input either way?  The process and motion were the products of
a collective endeavor.... 

	Bill

	On Jun 16, 2010, at 3:36 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:

		Hi, 

		I don't see why we need to define for every RT a new
process, it is quite weird to do that when in the same time we are
trying to handle with important time constraints all the ongoing PDP and
it is against any logic ( we can be flexible but there is time when we
need a stable solution IMHO). maybe the current process is not the best
for some people but changing it for each RT won't necessarily make it
better. 

		Rafik

		2010/6/16 <KnobenW at telekom.de>

			Bill,

			I hope it is not that complicated to explain and
understand (see comments inserted).

			Regards 
			Wolf-Ulrich 

________________________________

				Von: William Drake
[mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
				Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Juni 2010 08:16
				An: Gomes, Chuck
				Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich;
council at gnso.icann.org
				Betreff: Re: [council] Motion to approve
AOC endorsement

				Hi 

				On Jun 15, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Gomes,
Chuck wrote:

				Thank you very much for the very clear
and precise red-line version Wolf and thanks also for including my
suggested amendment.

				Bill/ Caroline,

				Do you accept these amendments as
friendly?

				As I've said I don't particularly see
limiting which candidates we can talk about in which order as an
improvement, but since the point has elicited little comment here I'm
guessing nobody else is too concerned and I should let it go.  And I
like the addition of the Chuck clause, "SG's should only propose
additional candidates that are of a different geographical location or
gender than their primary candidate."  But even so, before saying
whether I accept the amendment as friendly, I'd like to understand it,
and would appreciate clarification from CSG on the following two points:

				First, the amendment changes 
				* "the GNSO Council formed a drafting
team" to "the GNSO formed..." 
				* "GNSO Council endorsements" to "GNSO
endorsements" and
				* "the GNSO Council desires to adopt the
AOC-RR Drafting Team proposed process" to "the GNSO desires.."

				This I guess is consistent with
Kristina's earlier comments that Council " has been greatly restricted
in the restructuring and the initially proposed mechanism goes beyond
that role," and that "having a slightly more complicated process at the
SG level is far preferable to having the Council take on an SG role and
make nominations independent of the community."   But per previous I
don't quite get the notion that elected representatives of SGs working
together in Council are somehow separate from and would be acting
above/independent of SGs in voting on endorsements.  Does that only hold
here, or is it true of any and all Council decisions?   If we adopt this
language, are we collectively establishing the premise that Council is
not a representative body that can act on behalf of its constituents?
I'd think it important to be clear what we're saying here.  I understand
CSG wants to talk about this Saturday in the non-contracted house
meeting, which will presumably help, but it seems like a conversation
for the wider Council and community too if for no other reason than the
Council (?) will have to vote on it.

				[WUK: ]  It is more about the question
of the council's competences. According to the bylaws "The GNSO Council
is responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO".
Since the activities around the AoC could be seen as lying outside these
competences it is advisable to ascertain the GNSO as a whole endorses
the process. In other words: where the council competences are not in
question we won't have such a discussion. 

				Second, particularly as chair of the
drafting team, I would like to understand what is envisioned by striking
"for all future AOC review team selections" and limiting the mechanism
to just the pending WHOIS and SSR, since this is contrary to the prior
mandate from, um, the Council.  Is the idea that the drafting team will
become a permanent body and we will have to reword things and adopt
fresh processes and motions for each RT cycle?  How for example might
future language be different from what we have on the table now?

				[WUK: ]  There's no intention to
permanently establish a drafting team. But fixing the process "for all
future AoC RT selections" appeared too definitive with respect to a fast
changing environment. The amendment does not exclude the opportunity
that all future AoC RTs would follow this process.

				Would much appreciate any help getting
my head around this.

				Thanks,

				Bill

	***********************************************************
	William J. Drake
	Senior Associate
	Centre for International Governance
	Graduate Institute of International and
	 Development Studies
	Geneva, Switzerland
	william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
	www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
	www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
	***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100616/5f716044/attachment.html>