ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-ppsc-pdp]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Issue of who can request deferral of consideration of an issue

  • To: PDP-WT <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Issue of who can request deferral of consideration of an issue
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 11:52:33 -0400

Hi,

I agree with all of this except for one point.

I did not agree with the compromise and wrote  a dissenting opinion.  Even 
though the group was charged with coming to full consensus, the movement to  
denigrate the role of NCAs was so strong, it was decided that one NCA voice was 
not enough to call it rough consensus and it was called full consensus anyway.

Specifically from the document to be found at:   
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05245.html

> I cannot accept any restructuring plan that includes a reduction in Nomcom 
> Committee Appointee (NCA) participation. Not only do I believe it was out of 
> scope for this WG, I believe that doing so would have a deleterious effect 
> for the GNSO council and for ICANN in general and that it would run counter 
> to fulfillment of the core values of ICANN.

I should note, that all the way through that process I was consulting with my 
fellow NCA members and was making my points with their permission and approval. 
 Even though I am no longer an NCA and have become a member of a Constituency 
and a SG, I still feel this way and support Alan's position.

avri

On 2 Sep 2011, at 11:15, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> I said I would kick off this discussion.
> 
> The issue at hand is the phrase (roughly) "any VOTING Council member may 
> request deferral of consideration of an issue for one Council meeting" 
> (emphasis mine). It comes up in Recommendations 115 and 37 and other places 
> in the text.
> 
> As an aside, I note that in at least one of the occurrences, it says that it 
> must be a WRITTEN request. I don't recall any discussion about that and 
> suspect it may be an error.
> 
> The first occurrence includes the footnote "The term „voting Council Member‰ 
> is intentionally used by the PDP-WT to refer to only those persons
> serving on the GNSO Council that have a vote as opposed to liaisons and 
> others that do not." 
> 
> I note that mentioning Liaisons here is a red herring, as Liaisons, by the 
> definition of the GNSO Council in the Bylaws, does not include Liaison. Not 
> only are Liaisons not listed when the Council members are being defined 
> (Article X, Section 3.1), but the following sentence makes it even more 
> explicit:
> 
> "Liaisons shall not be members of or entitled to vote, to make or second 
> motions, or to serve as an officer on the GNSO Council, but otherwise 
> liaisons shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of 
> the GNSO Council."
> 
> I believe that the inclusion of "voting" in our recommendations is in 
> violation of the Bylaws Article X, Section 3.1e) which states (emphasis mine):
> 
> "three representatives selected by the ICANN Nominating Committee, one of 
> which shall be non-voting, but otherwise entitled to participate on equal 
> footing with other members of the GNSO Council including, e.g. the making and 
> seconding of motions and of serving as Chair if elected. One Nominating 
> Committee Appointee voting representative shall be assigned to each House (as 
> described in Section 3(8) of this Article) by the Nominating Committee."
> 
> On the chance that this argument is not sufficiently persuasive, I will 
> continue.
> 
> First a bit of history on the current Council structure. It was developed by 
> a closed WG (a conflict in terms for ICANN) that was charged by the Board to 
> come up with a structure acceptable to all parties within 1 month after the 
> Paris meeting. Avri was the only other person on that group, but my 
> recollection is that the closed archives were opened after the fact, so 
> anyone who really cares and is a real masochist could check for themselves if 
> I am mangling history.
> 
> The final recommendation of the group which was adopted by the Board kept all 
> three Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) to Council, but to put one NCA in 
> each house and one on the Council, but houseless (or homeless as it has been 
> called more recently). Since all voting is done by house, that last NCA has 
> no vote. One could argue that since the non-contracted house has twice as 
> many SG Councilors, it should also have twice as many NCA, but that argument 
> was not successfully made. Avri was the NCA on the WG representing the NCAs. 
> I was there as ALAC Liaison, but since I was a NomCom appointee to the ALAC, 
> I was similarly tainted. We reluctantly accepted this compromise, but it must 
> be understood that this was under considerable pressure from some WG members 
> who REALLY wanted to see ZERO NCAa on Council.
> 
> So we accepted it and that is now history. To use the lexicon of Orwell's 
> Animal Farm, we now had a situation of All Councillor were equal, but some 
> were more equal than others. It dawned on me when I was thinking about this 
> note that it would be completely impossible to conceive of one of the SG 
> accepting that one of their three or six Councillors would forego their vote. 
> 
> The origin of the current wording in our report (I *think*) is that we first 
> started talking about a deferral request coming from a SG to give the SG time 
> to deliberate, and not from the Councillor personally. That would have taken 
> the privilege from all NCAs. But on reconsideration, I think (but I suspect I 
> missed a meeting because I am a bit vague on this) it was decided that this 
> was a personal request. I find that quite reasonable, since it is not only 
> the vote that is critical, but the DISCUSSION. All the more so since several 
> SGs allow their councillors to vote their conscience and do not bind them.
> 
> I don't know when the concept of voting councillors came in, but I know I 
> found it objectionable. It takes yet another privilege from the homeless NCA, 
> and without any real justification, or any real benefit to Council. It means 
> that this NCA may be denied the right to meaningfully partake in the debate 
> on an issue, and debate is the ONLY tool that this person has. 
> 
> I strongly suggest removing the word VOTING from all of the occurrences. It 
> has no subtle side-effects as the footnote mentioned above implies. It simple 
> serves to give the homeless the same right as all 20 other Councillors, and 
> removes a new, seemingly mean-spirited, insult to the injury already caused 
> by the new Council structure.
> 
> If the WG feels that SOME restriction must be added, then I suggest it be 
> restricted to Council members who are allowed to make motions, as this is 
> pretty close to a motion (one that does not require a vote to be accepted).
> 
> Alan





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy