AW: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement

Mon Jun 21 07:32:07 UTC 2010

This could lead to a situation where the GNSO has to deal with
applications without having an agreed process. This is not in our
interest and should be avoided. Let's talk about. Maybe there are
constructive views from other parties?

Regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 

  _____  

Von: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Gesendet: Sonntag, 20. Juni 2010 19:08
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Cc: GNSO Council List; Gomes, Chuck
Betreff: Re: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement

Hi Wolf-Ulrich, 

I was just about to come back to this, you beat me to the punch.  Having
had the opportunity yesterday to hear a bit more on the thinking, I
guess I'm still of the view I shared on the last council call, since:

1. We had a drafting team comprising reps of all SGs that worked
collaboratively and agreed a text. This was on the table for some time
internally and then in the Council before concerns were expressed just
prior to consideration of the motion.  IMO, the DT having done what was
asked of it, its text deserves a chance to be voted on.

2.  I still don't see why it is necessary to codify the sequence in
which Councilors may discuss possible additional diversity endorsements,
or to limit the conditions under which they may discuss the whole pool
of applicants.  I trust Councilors to of course talk first about
candidates for whom SGs have expressed preferences, I can't imagine the
conversation in which they'd refuse to.

3.  The drafting team was mandated to propose a process that could be
used for RT endorsements going forward.  If subsequent experience
suggests that it'd make sense to revisit and tweak the process, we would
do that.  I don't see why we should assume at the front end that there
will be problems and hence limit our agreement to just the next two RTs.

4.  As discussed in today's meeting, it has become clear in recent days
that there a different views in play about the nature and proper role of
the Council.  To the extent that the amendment is based one particular
view, it seems premature to set that philosophical baseline in this
instance.  We need to have a broader and more probing discussion of this
somewhere down the line and see if we can come to some shared
understanding.

So let's treat it as unfriendly and whatever Councilors decide in their
SG representative capacities, fine.

Cheers,

Bill

On Jun 20, 2010, at 6:07 PM, <KnobenW at telekom.de> <KnobenW at telekom.de>
wrote:

Bill,

following the NCPH discussion on the topic: could you now accept the
amendment as friendly?

Regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 

  _____  

Von: Mary Wong [mailto:MWong at piercelaw.edu] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. Juni 2010 06:39
An: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Cc: rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM; council at gnso.icann.org; cgomes at verisign.com
Betreff: Re: AW: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement

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

 <http://www.piercelaw.edu/> <IMAGE.jpg> 

***********************************************************
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/20100621/15f4bd1f/attachment.html>