[Bayesian] Re: [ispcp] ENC: Council Motions
Malcolm Hutty
malcolm at linx.net
Fri Apr 8 09:56:25 UTC 2011
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 16:30:55 -0300, Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I would like your comments on the RAA Amendment Motion below that
> criticizes the Contracted parties Voting systematically as a block to
> block any amendment to the RAA.
>
> I'm inclined to vote for option B, but would like to hear comments.
> Sorry for the short notice.
(The following is just my personal opinion)
To be honest, although I sympathise with the underlying sentiments I'm
not entirely comfortable with either motion.
I'm not keen on the ISPCP voting for a motion that appears to assert
that the ICANN multistakeholder process has irretrievably failed,
as these appear motions to do. I'm also reluctant to accuse the
Registrars of acting bad faith all along, in a formal motion.
I would prefer a motion that asserted our previous positions, noted
that gNSO was an advisory Council to the Board, and stated
that if the gNSO council is unable to reach a conclusion due to the
sustained block by one particular community, the Board would
be forced to take notice of the fact that the entire non-contracted
community supports one approach.
This gets us to much the same place in terms of decision-making, but
instead of saying the ICANN multistakeholder process
has failed, asserts that it includes a conflict-resolver of last
resort, namely the Board, warns the Registrars that they
rely on the Board supporting them against the rest of the community
united at their peril, and invites the Board to look behind
the lack of a formal gNSO conclusion.
Of course, I recognise that there is no resolution to that effect on
the table, and even if it were NCUC would be unlikely to support it.
So I leave you with these comments and trust our leadership to make a
judgement call on how best to proceed.
Malcolm.
More information about the ispcp
mailing list