RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Issue of who can request deferral of consideration of an issue
Thanks Jeff. Just to be clear, in your second sentence you refer to "non-voting councillorS". There is only one according to the current Council structure and ICANN Bylaws. And GREAT to see you back here! Very big :-) Alan At 02/09/2011 02:01 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote: 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.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.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.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.Again, this is my personal opinion, not the view of the registries or certainly the chair.Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & PolicyThe 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.-----Original Message-----From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike RodenbaughSent: Friday, September 02, 2011 1:47 PM To: 'PDP-WT'Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Issue of who can request deferral of consideration of an issueI agree with Alan and Avri. The homeless NCA should have as much equality with other Council members as possible. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 8:53 AM To: PDP-WT Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Issue of who can request deferral of consideration of an issue 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
|