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

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I agree with Zahid and he highlighted the main point that diversity is core
value, I think that is clear , no way for dropping diversity requirement .


Rafik


2010/2/10 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
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>