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

["Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>]

Just so I am clear:   what I meant was that the argument for not sacrificing 
informed participation for the sake of diversity also applies to sacrificing 
informed participation for the sake of avoiding a perception of conflict of 
interest.

 

If the only argument in regards excluding councillors now is time commitment, I 
would hark back to Bill’s comments and our last call – it would be 
inappropriate for us to draw presumptions in regards the ability of individuals 
to manage time.  We have highlighted the time commitment and now its up to 
volunteers to volunteer and form the GNSO/SGs not to nominate.

 

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 Rosette, Kristina
Sent: 10 February 2010 21:23
To: zahid@xxxxxxxxx; owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Resolving outstanding issues

 

The same argument could also work against excluding councillors. Should we 
'create a process that has the potential to sacrifice informed participation 
for the sake of ' not seeming like there is a conflict of interest?



Yes. Conflict of interest taints the process and the outcome.

The Councilor exclusion is based on conflict of interest concerns and time 
commitments. 


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: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
Cc: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
Sent: Wed Feb 10 11:13:25 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Resolving outstanding issues 



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.


Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

  _____  

From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx> 

Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:09:43 -0500

To: <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>; <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>

Cc: <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>

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

 

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

 <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

 

 

 

 

  _____