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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
I agree with Zahid and I also have explained in this list why I think geo
diversity and a fair representation of the developing world is essential to
the reviewing teams and to the future of ICANN.
Talk to you soon.
Olga

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