[gnso-arr-dt] Resolving outstanding issues
- To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] Resolving outstanding issues
- From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:43:03 +0100
On Feb 9, 2010, at 11:52 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> I don't think there is anything to prevent us from having a motion with
> bracketed alternatives. What I worry about is the very short time
> period we have. If we get to our meeting on 18 Feb and cannot get at
> least simple majority support for one combination of options, what do we
> do? Maybe we could take straw polls during the few days before and try
> to identify what combination of options are most likely to have enough
> support. There will be little time to consult with our respective
> groups; what happens if one groups picks a set of options and those
> don't gain enough support; will there be time to consult again?
> Probably not.
> Regarding separating the motions, here is an alternative approach: 1) We
> put forward a motion that has the diversity and gender
> requirements(assuming the DT mostly favors this approach); 2) amendments
> are proposed and voted on before the motion is voted on. This might be
> more realistic from a time perspective. Amendments could be proposed
> soon after the motion is made to check support.
Ok, if the use of brackets is atypical and might confuse things, let's follow
our standard practice then? We can forward the text and motion and folks who
want to can propose unfriendly amendments a) deleting the diversity
requirements and b) prohibiting councilors from being considered. If the
Council ends up adopting its procedures on a divided vote, so be it, ICANN can
deal with the optics etc later.
Perhaps we can take off the table here the one remaining issue, the Evaluation
Team. Chuck feels this could provide the houses with useful guidance on the
two open slots prior to voting, I've come to think that it's an unnecessary
additional step that won't serve the intended purpose. But I believe neither
of us feels strongly enough about our positions to further block consensus, so
if DT members would express their preferences that'd be great.
I should remind that if we were to drop the ET then we'd have to
correspondingly change the provision concerning an inadequately diverse outcome
in the first round, i.e. by either having the council constitute a small group
to try and work out a compromise, or having the council itself deal with this.