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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

That core value emphasizes broad informed participation. The IPC's point is 
that we shouldn't create a process that has the potential to sacrifice informed 
participation for the sake of diversity. Should diversity be a goal? Yes. A 
requirement? No. Yet, it's currently drafted as a requirement.


Kristina Rosette 
Covington & Burling LLP 
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20004-2401 
voice: 202-662-5173 
direct fax: 202-778-5173 
main fax: 202-662-6291 
e-mail: krosette@xxxxxxx 

This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is 
confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been 
inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank 
you for your cooperation. 





------------------------- 
Sent from my Wireless Handheld 




________________________________

From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
To: Zahid Jamil <zahid@xxxxxxxxx> 
Cc: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
<gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
Sent: Wed Feb 10 10:55:00 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Resolving outstanding issues 


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 <http://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

                 

                 

                 

                 

________________________________