[council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement

Wed Jun 16 18:02:49 UTC 2010

I am ok with the amendments but would rather see us define a process
that we can stick to for all future RTs, rather than revisit this every
time. That was our original intent after all. And I don't see that this
precludes the Council from revisiting the process at a later stage if
the need arises.

Caroline. 

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: 16 June 2010 18:46
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/e7fb9e71/attachment.html>