RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Resolving outstanding issues

["Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>]

Let me start by saying that I have no intention at this time to be a
volunteer. - but I understand that what we decide her may become a long term
principle for Reviews:

 

So here is my take on the issue of conflict of interest:

 

The Affirmation of Commitments states that:

 

"The review will be performed by volunteer community members and the review
team will be constituted and published for public comment, and will include
the following  (or their designated nominees): the Chair of the GAC, the
Chair of the Board of ICANN, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and
Information of the DOC, representatives of the relevant ICANN Advisory
Committees and Supporting Organizations and independent experts." 

 

As such:

the Review seems in part like a Self-Review - and not an independent review

The 'representative of the GNSO is exactly that 'representing' the GNSO - so
it does not seem as an independent position.  The volunteer has to be
willing to represent the GNSO (presumably GNSO interest)

 

In any case in regards conflicts - the Chair of the GAC and the Chair of the
Board are reviewing:

 

" (a) continually assessing and improving ICANN Board of Directors (Board)
governance which shall include an ongoing evaluation of Board performance,
the Board selection process, the extent to which Board composition meets
ICANN's present and future needs, and the consideration of an appeal
mechanism for Board decisions; (b) assessing the role and effectiveness of
the GAC and its interaction with the Board"

 

- so inherently there is already a conflict of interest on the review team
as allowed and envisaged by the AoC.

 

It is also interesting to note that the review will be performed by a group
that 'will include' and so not be limited to the Chair of the GAC, Chair of
the Board, AC/SO reps and independent experts.  So it could also include
others.

 

 

 

 

On Diversity, I had a look at the GNSO Bylaws:

 

Section 2. CORE VALUES

4. Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the
functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels
of policy development and decision-making.

 

 

So do we ignore this Core Value?

 

 

Section 3. GNSO COUNCIL

Stakeholder Groups should, in their charters, ensure their representation on
the GNSO Council is as diverse as possible and practicable, including
considerations of geography, GNSO Constituency, sector, ability and gender.

 

IF the Council is supposed to live by this should our choice not represent
this principle?

 

 

Except in a "special circumstance," such as, but not limited to, meeting
geographic or other diversity requirements defined in the Stakeholder Group
charters, where no alternative representative is available to serve, no
Council member may be selected to serve more than two consecutive terms, in
such a special circumstance a Council member may serve one additional term.
For these purposes, a person selected to fill a vacancy in a term shall not
be deemed to have served that term. A former Council member who has served
two consecutive terms must remain out of office for one full term prior to
serving any subsequent term as Council member. A "special circumstance" is
defined in the GNSO Operating Procedures.

 

DO we have a special circumstance here? (I do understand the provision
directly above has to do with Council members but this is a principle we
work under, it seems)

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Zahid Jamil

Barrister-at-law

Jamil & Jamil

Barristers-at-law

219-221 Central Hotel Annexe

Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan

Cell: +923008238230

Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025

Fax: +92 21 5655026

 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com

 

Notice / Disclaimer

This message contains confidential information and its contents are being
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may
contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law,
and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client
privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of
any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing
it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or
incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written
permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.

 

From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: 10 February 2010 18:48
To: William Drake; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Resolving outstanding issues

 

Bill,

 

I assume we will try to resolve any loose ends in our call today.  I will be
away from my office and in an area where cell phone service may be spotty
but will do my best to call in.  If for any reason I do not have coverage, I
will get up to speed as quickly thereafter as possible and follow-up on any
actions needed on my part as Council Chair.

 

Chuck

 


  _____  


From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 3:43 AM
To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] Resolving outstanding issues
Importance: High

Hi 

 

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.

 

Best,

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

  _____