RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Reminder To Provide Supplemental Statements - If Desired
Let's try that again.
Thanks for this additional time regarding statements. My statement is
attached and pasted below.
Chuck
Comments from Chuck Gomes regarding the Report To ICANN Board of
Directors From Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring dated 25 July
2008
I want to begin my comments by expressing my compliments to everyone who
participated in the work that resulted in the report to the Board. We
had lots of disagreements, plenty of emotions and we spent lots of long
hours, but in my assessment everyone contributed constructively. We did
not achieve 100% consensus on every point but we came awfully close.
Moreover, I personally believe that the few areas where there were one
or two members who disagreed are areas that are not critical components
of the overall solution proposed and they are areas that could still be
worked to reach resolution without delaying approval of the GNSO
structure recommended.
I want to give special acknowledgement to Rob Hoggarth in his role of
leading the group. We definitely made his job challenging but he
handled it professionally and helped us stay on track right to the end.
I also want to communicate special thanks to Jon Nevett. As we were
getting very close to our deadline, his 'bicameral' idea provided a way
forward when it looked very much like there was not much of a chance to
reach any broad consensus. Jon also played a key role in preparing
several summaries of where we were at during our last few days of work.
On behalf of the gTLD Registry Constituency (RyC) that I was tasked to
represent, I support the total package of recommendations. They do not
include everything the RyC membership supported but that is true of
every group that was represented. Everyone made compromises in the
spirit of reaching a solution that could be supported by all or at least
a strong majority.
The main body of the report says, "There were also a number of areas
where the group did not reach consensus . . ." This is true but I think
it is helpful to specifically point out the very limited nature of
those. In Attachment A, areas where there was not unanimous support are
shown in bold font. There are only three items in bold font and they
involve only two separate issues:
* Whether or not there should be a third Nominating Committee
appointee that serves in a non-voting capacity at the Council level, in
addition to one each voting Nominating Committee appointee in each house
- In the final analysis, I believe there was only one person who is
opposed to having such an appointee.
* Whether or not it should be possible to have the third
Nominating Committee appointee that serves in a non-voting capacity at
the Council level serve as chair of the Council if the Council does not
agree on another chair - my understanding is that there are only two
opponents to this idea.
RyC members, like just about all others in the GNSO, expressed serious
concerns about excessive complexity of the bicameral model as it was
initially proposed. But I sincerely believe that the application of
that model to voting only eliminated most of the complexity and provides
an approach to Council operations that will be easy to manage and
effective.
Consistent with our belief in support of the BGC WG recommendations that
policy making should minimize voting and that efforts should be made to
reach rough consensus that most can support, the RyC strongly supported
high thresholds for policy decisions. But when it became clear that
many in the small consensus group would not support thresholds as high
as some RyC members wanted, I compromised and accepted thresholds that
were as high as possible while at the same time addressing concerns that
others had in this regard. This I believe is an excellent example of
the 'rough consensus' approach that the BGC WG recommended.
In the case of the proposed Contracted House, I do not believe that it
is necessary to have more than four representatives each for Registrars
and Registries. In my opinion, three representatives have been able to
effectively represent registrars and registries quite well. It may be
that as the RyC grows in the next few years, that having four
representatives could be useful, but any larger than that would seem to
be unnecessary if the Council is a policy management body rather than a
legislative body as the BGC WG recommended. Also, it may be that having
four representatives could be useful in balancing out the voices of the
larger number of representatives proposed for the Non-Contracted Parties
House. But I want to point out that having four representatives if each
had to be from a different geographical region would exasperate an
already existing problem of finding available and qualified Council
representatives; therefore, I would support four representatives for
each Stakeholder Group in the Contracted House only if they could come
from three different geographical regions. The RyC will address this
issue in the GNSO comments currently being developed regarding
geographical regions.
Having one Council level, non-voting Nominating Committee appointee
seemed to me to be a reasonable compromise between those on the
consensus group who strongly supported the independent role of
Nominating Committee appointees and those who questioned the value. The
RyC definitely believes that there is value in having independent
participants on the Council. We support the inclusion of one voting
Nominating Committee appointee in each House within the Council and also
having a non-voting Nominating Committee appointee at the Council level.
We also support the latter as a possible option to serve as Council
Chair as needed, but I communicated several times in the consensus group
that I believe the issue of Council Chair selection is one that could
easily be deferred for 30 days without detracting from the bicameral
voting solution proposed. Whatever procedure is adopted for selection
of the Council Chair, RyC members strongly emphasize that, to be
effective, the Chair must be very familiar with the GNSO and the GNSO
Council.
Regarding Section 6 of Attachment A regarding representation, I
supported a statement that would require that all stakeholder group and
constituency policy statements should include documentation
demonstrating what stakeholders participated in preparing and supporting
the statements. The consensus group elected not to include my
suggestion in the form I presented it and I can live with that. It is
indeed an issue more closely related to the PDP revision that will
happen in the near future, but community representation is a fundamental
value of the bottom-up policy development process within any GNSO
structure including the bicameral voting approach proposed.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate that I support the complete set of
recommendations presented in Attachment A. At the same time, without
suggesting any delay in approval of the bicameral voting approach
recommended by the consensus group, I am willing to work with others in
the next 30 days or so to further decide how we select a Council Chair.
________________________________
From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert Hoggarth
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 12:30 PM
To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] Reminder To Provide Supplemental
Statements - If Desired
Importance: High
All;
You'll recall that the final working group report, as submitted,
noted the exhaustive round-the-world/clock final efforts that you all
put in prior to the deadline and made the request for editorial
privileges on behalf of group members who might choose to revise their
supplemental statements in light of the final report text.
In order to submit any revised statements to John in a timely
manner for Board consideration, I'd like to get them in today. Steve M
had noted an 11:59 AM deadline in a previous communique. That seems
reasonable to me. As I write this, it is a little after 5am Samoa time,
so if you intend to submit a revised statement please get it to me by
Noon in Samoa/1600PDT/1900EDT/2300UTC. So far I have received one
revised statement.
My communication to John Jeffrey this evening will have two
attachments. In one I will bundle the revised supplemental statements
and in another I will submit a "revised" final report in which the only
revision will be substituting the revised supplemental statements.
Cheers,
RobH
Attachment:
GNSO Strucute - Comments from Chuck Gomes regarding the Report To ICANN Board of Directors From WorkingGNSO Structure Board Report - Gomes Comments.doc
|