[council] Motion re the report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team
rubensk at nic.br
Fri Nov 4 04:36:52 UTC 2016
> On Nov 4, 2016, at 9:44 AM, <policy at paulmcgrady.com> <policy at paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
> Hi Amr,
> Thanks for your note. You say something very interesting, namely "If the Council believes that the DT did not act in accordance with the instructions it received in the motion that created it, then perhaps the CSG may have reason to request that the DT report and recommendations not be approved/adopted. That is not the case, however." The point of the minority report is that it actually is the case that the DT did not follow the instructions. Instead of coming back with recommendations based upon how the new Bylaws are actually written, much of the Report simply boils down to inserting the word "Council" before "GNSO" wherever that it suits the majority. This, of course, is a novel reading and undoes quite a bit of Workstream 1 which was designed to ensure that all members of the Empowered Community are empowered, not just a lucky few.
> Given the novel reading of the Bylaws required to approve the Report, what is the objection to seeking advice from ICANN Legal? Is the majority is concerned that ICANN Legal will come back and make it clear that the novel reading is inappropriate? If so, then it seems to me that it is extra important to have ICANN Legal look this over before we leap. Can you please explain the hesitancy to have ICANN's lawyers look at this?
Is there a reason why the legal advice being suggested is only the ICANN staff one, while WS1 always had legal advice from both ICANN/Jones Day and Sidney/Adler ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the council