<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Issue of who can request deferral of consideration of an issue
- To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Issue of who can request deferral of consideration of an issue
- From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 11:14:02 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>My opinion:<br><br>Since we have limited the total number
of deferrals to 1, I'm less concerned about -who- requests the delay.
</div><div><br></div><div>I do not recall the intention / justification behind
adding this criteria, except to ensure that requests didn't come from anywhere
in the GNSO (SG/WG chairs, etc.), but rather channel these requests through a
councilor.</div><div><br>So if we can modify the language in such a way that
treats all -councilors- equally, but doesn't extend this option to
non-councilors, I'm probably OK with
that.</div><div><br></div><div>THanks--</div><div><br></div><div>J.</div><div><br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid
blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black;
font-family:verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Issue of who can request deferral of<br>
consideration of an issue<br>
From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <<a
href="mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Date: Fri, September 02, 2011 12:46 pm<br>
To: "'PDP-WT'" <<a
href="mailto:gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
I agree with Alan and Avri. The homeless NCA should have as much equality<br>
with other Council members as possible.<br>
<br>
Mike Rodenbaugh<br>
RODENBAUGH LAW<br>
tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087<br>
<a href="http://rodenbaugh.com";>http://rodenbaugh.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a
href="mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx</a>
[<a
href="mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx</a>]<br>
On Behalf Of Avri Doria<br>
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 8:53 AM<br>
To: PDP-WT<br>
Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Issue of who can request deferral of<br>
consideration of an issue<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
I agree with all of this except for one point.<br>
<br>
I did not agree with the compromise and wrote a dissenting opinion. Even<br>
though the group was charged with coming to full consensus, the movement to<br>
denigrate the role of NCAs was so strong, it was decided that one NCA voice<br>
was not enough to call it rough consensus and it was called full consensus<br>
anyway.<br>
<br>
Specifically from the document to be found at:<br>
<a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05245.html";>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05245.html</a><br>
<br>
> I cannot accept any restructuring plan that includes a reduction in
Nomcom<br>
Committee Appointee (NCA) participation. Not only do I believe it was out of<br>
scope for this WG, I believe that doing so would have a deleterious effect<br>
for the GNSO council and for ICANN in general and that it would run counter<br>
to fulfillment of the core values of ICANN.<br>
<br>
I should note, that all the way through that process I was consulting with<br>
my fellow NCA members and was making my points with their permission and<br>
approval. Even though I am no longer an NCA and have become a member of a<br>
Constituency and a SG, I still feel this way and support Alan's position.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
On 2 Sep 2011, at 11:15, Alan Greenberg wrote:<br>
<br>
> I said I would kick off this discussion.<br>
> <br>
> The issue at hand is the phrase (roughly) "any VOTING Council member
may<br>
request deferral of consideration of an issue for one Council meeting"<br>
(emphasis mine). It comes up in Recommendations 115 and 37 and other places<br>
in the text.<br>
> <br>
> As an aside, I note that in at least one of the occurrences, it says
that<br>
it must be a WRITTEN request. I don't recall any discussion about that and<br>
suspect it may be an error.<br>
> <br>
> The first occurrence includes the footnote "The term „voting Council<br>
Member‰ is intentionally used by the PDP-WT to refer to only those persons<br>
> serving on the GNSO Council that have a vote as opposed to liaisons and<br>
others that do not." <br>
> <br>
> I note that mentioning Liaisons here is a red herring, as Liaisons, by
the<br>
definition of the GNSO Council in the Bylaws, does not include Liaison. Not<br>
only are Liaisons not listed when the Council members are being defined<br>
(Article X, Section 3.1), but the following sentence makes it even more<br>
explicit:<br>
> <br>
> "Liaisons shall not be members of or entitled to vote, to make or
second<br>
motions, or to serve as an officer on the GNSO Council, but otherwise<br>
liaisons shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of<br>
the GNSO Council."<br>
> <br>
> I believe that the inclusion of "voting" in our recommendations is in<br>
violation of the Bylaws Article X, Section 3.1e) which states (emphasis<br>
mine):<br>
> <br>
> "three representatives selected by the ICANN Nominating Committee, one
of<br>
which shall be non-voting, but otherwise entitled to participate on equal<br>
footing with other members of the GNSO Council including, e.g. the making<br>
and seconding of motions and of serving as Chair if elected. One Nominating<br>
Committee Appointee voting representative shall be assigned to each House<br>
(as described in Section 3(8) of this Article) by the Nominating Committee."<br>
> <br>
> On the chance that this argument is not sufficiently persuasive, I will<br>
continue.<br>
> <br>
> First a bit of history on the current Council structure. It was
developed<br>
by a closed WG (a conflict in terms for ICANN) that was charged by the Board<br>
to come up with a structure acceptable to all parties within 1 month after<br>
the Paris meeting. Avri was the only other person on that group, but my<br>
recollection is that the closed archives were opened after the fact, so<br>
anyone who really cares and is a real masochist could check for themselves<br>
if I am mangling history.<br>
> <br>
> The final recommendation of the group which was adopted by the Board
kept<br>
all three Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) to Council, but to put one<br>
NCA in each house and one on the Council, but houseless (or homeless as it<br>
has been called more recently). Since all voting is done by house, that last<br>
NCA has no vote. One could argue that since the non-contracted house has<br>
twice as many SG Councilors, it should also have twice as many NCA, but that<br>
argument was not successfully made. Avri was the NCA on the WG representing<br>
the NCAs. I was there as ALAC Liaison, but since I was a NomCom appointee to<br>
the ALAC, I was similarly tainted. We reluctantly accepted this compromise,<br>
but it must be understood that this was under considerable pressure from<br>
some WG members who REALLY wanted to see ZERO NCAa on Council.<br>
> <br>
> So we accepted it and that is now history. To use the lexicon of
Orwell's<br>
Animal Farm, we now had a situation of All Councillor were equal, but some<br>
were more equal than others. It dawned on me when I was thinking about this<br>
note that it would be completely impossible to conceive of one of the SG<br>
accepting that one of their three or six Councillors would forego their<br>
vote. <br>
> <br>
> The origin of the current wording in our report (I *think*) is that we<br>
first started talking about a deferral request coming from a SG to give the<br>
SG time to deliberate, and not from the Councillor personally. That would<br>
have taken the privilege from all NCAs. But on reconsideration, I think (but<br>
I suspect I missed a meeting because I am a bit vague on this) it was<br>
decided that this was a personal request. I find that quite reasonable,<br>
since it is not only the vote that is critical, but the DISCUSSION. All the<br>
more so since several SGs allow their councillors to vote their conscience<br>
and do not bind them.<br>
> <br>
> I don't know when the concept of voting councillors came in, but I know
I<br>
found it objectionable. It takes yet another privilege from the homeless<br>
NCA, and without any real justification, or any real benefit to Council. It<br>
means that this NCA may be denied the right to meaningfully partake in the<br>
debate on an issue, and debate is the ONLY tool that this person has. <br>
> <br>
> I strongly suggest removing the word VOTING from all of the
occurrences.<br>
It has no subtle side-effects as the footnote mentioned above implies. It<br>
simple serves to give the homeless the same right as all 20 other<br>
Councillors, and removes a new, seemingly mean-spirited, insult to the<br>
injury already caused by the new Council structure.<br>
> <br>
> If the WG feels that SOME restriction must be added, then I suggest it
be<br>
restricted to Council members who are allowed to make motions, as this is<br>
pretty close to a motion (one that does not require a vote to be accepted).<br>
> <br>
> Alan<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|