<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Issue of who can request deferral of consideration of an issue
- To: "Neuman,Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- 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 11:25:56 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>We haven't heard from Paul, Alex or Wolf, but it sounds
like the usual cast of characters are violently agreeing with each other on
this...</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: "Neuman, Jeff" <<a
href="http://Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx";>Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Date: Fri, September 02, 2011 1:01 pm<br>
To: "<a href="mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>" <<a
href="mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>>,
"'PDP-WT'"<br>
<<a href="mailto:gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
So, these are all good points, and just to play a little bit of a devil's
advocate, lets focus for a second on the rationale behind allowing Councilors
to ask for the 1 meeting delay as opposed to the action of asking for the
delay.<br>
<br>
If we can say that the same rationale that applies to voting Councilors to ask
for a delay applies to the non-voting councilors as well, then it seems like we
have our answer. If, however, the same rationale does not apply, then perhaps
a distinction can be made.<br>
<br>
When I think of the last couple of years when a request has been made to delay
a vote for one meeting, in my own mind I agree that the rationale would apply
equally for voting and non-voting members. Although we talk of just the voting
mechanic in this e-mail string, we also use the extra meeting to get more up to
speed on an issue so that we can more intelligently discuss the issue at the
next Council meeting (not just vote). This may include suggesting appropriate
amendments, other areas of policy work, discussions of how this interacts with
other policy efforts, etc. Whether ultimately one votes or not on the issue is
not indicative of the only benefits provided from the delay.<br>
<br>
Therefore, I am coming around to Avri and Alan's viewpoint (putting aside
whether it is a violation of the bylaws or not), and personally do not see why
we should not make the changes proposed.<br>
<br>
Again, this is my personal opinion, not the view of the registries or certainly
the chair.<br>
<br>
Jeffrey J. Neuman <br>
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.<br>
<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>]
On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh<br>
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 1:47 PM<br>
To: 'PDP-WT'<br>
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Issue of who can request deferral of consideration
of an issue<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>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|