AW: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement

[Mary Wong]

FWIW I agree with Bill and Caroline that the motion, as it stands (or is that stood?) does NOT prevent the Council from proposing/supporting/endorsing a different process for future RTs. What it seems to me to do is to endorse a baseline/default starting point that has the benefit of being uniform, clear and resulting from the thoughtful efforts of the DT (on which all SGs were represented).
 
I find it somewhat ironic - and perhaps a testimony to those who have mentioned elsewhere that the question of what we as Councillors are meant to do or be - that the question of whether (and to what extent) the Council is acting as a "managerial" versus a legislative top-down body in the new GNSO environment seems to be arising in various contexts recently. Regardless, I'm having a bit of a hard time believing that Councillors elected by their SGs would not do their best to fully represent that SG's interests, while respecting the role of the Council and the need for consensus among the whole ICANN community (even if this means, as is often the case, questioning or proposing amendments to motions, as happened here. I fully believe that the differences of opinion we are seeing on this issue is the result of various Councillors balancing the demands and needs of their particular SGs/constituencies with the overall effect to the community and the work of the Cou
 
I understand that this may be more difficult - depending on the issue, for instance - for certain SGs at certain points in time. However, and in this particular context, I'm inclined to give greater weight to the deliberations and recommendations of the DT, especially as it was a broadly representative team and it remains open to us at a future date to require and/or justify a different process.
 
Cheers
Mary
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>> 


From: William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
To:<KnobenW at telekom.de>
CC:<cgomes at verisign.com>, <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>, <council at gnso.icann.org>
Date: 6/16/2010 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: AW: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement
Hi Wolf-Ulrich,

On Jun 16, 2010, at 11:48 PM, <KnobenW at telekom.de> wrote:



As I tried to explain, the amended motion does not preclude using the same process after the next two RTs. But it doesn't cement it like some GNSO folks were feeling before



A parallel small point, the unamended motion does not  preclude the Council revisiting the process after the next two RTs if issues are identified that merit tweak.  No cement or other building materials bind us to follow this or any other process we don't prefer.







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.




Determining whether the GNSO as a whole supports or opposes a particular decision on our plate would be an interesting new requirement for Council action.  We could, for example, henceforth require a consultation and consensus formation on http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709 before taking any action.  I'm sure there are some folks there who'd like to weigh in.  But in lieu of such a requirement, Council representatives act in accordance with the norms and customs of their respective communities and of the democratically elected Council.  An interesting question then is whether other SGs and the Council as a whole should set aside that approach, redefine its role, and base its actions on any one SG's internal norms and dynamics.  I'm open to persuasion, but a priori this seems like an unusual foundation for collective action.

Cheers,

Bill



Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100617/89d2b1e3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IMAGE.jpg
Type: image/jpg
Size: 14408 bytes
Desc: JPEG image
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100617/89d2b1e3/IMAGE.jpg>