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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry for getting that part wrong - 3 years is a stretch...

Yes, the feeling against NCAs (which as I 
mentioned extended to me as a NCA to the ALAC) 
was VERY strong, particularly from two prominent 
members of what was to become the Non- contracted 
party house. Which is why the 2 NCA's in that 
house could never have flown even though it was a logical move.
I regret not noticing the words in Article X, 
Section 3.1e at the time I wrote the public 
comment. Violation of Bylaws is a pretty strong argument, in my mind.
Alan

At 02/09/2011 11:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> 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