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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I understand the request for deferral as a chance for council members to 
discuss policy matters more deeply within their communities which could be an 
SG, constituency or any GNSO related community. This applies to all council 
members.
 
So I support the proposal
 

Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben

 

 

Deutsche Telekom AG
Service Headquarters
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Am Propsthof 49-51, 53121 Bonn, Germany
+49 2244 873999 (Phone)
+49 2244 873955 (Fax)
+49 151 1452 5867 (Mobile)
E-Mail: knobenw@xxxxxxxxxx
www.telekom.com <http://www.telekom.com/> 

Life is for sharing.

Deutsche Telekom AG
Supervisory Board: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Chairman)
Board of Management: René Obermann (Chairman),
Dr. Manfred Balz, Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme,
Timotheus Höttges, Edward R. Kozel, Thomas Sattelberger
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794
Registered office: Bonn
WEEE reg. no. DE50478376

 

Big changes start small – conserve resources by not printing every e-mail.


 


________________________________

        Von: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von James M. Bladel
        Gesendet: Freitag, 2. September 2011 20:26
        An: Neuman,Jeff
        Cc: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'PDP-WT'
        Betreff: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Issue of who can request deferral of 
consideration of an issue
        
        
        
        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...

        J.


                -------- Original Message --------
                Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Issue of who can request deferral 
of
                consideration of an issue
                From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
                Date: Fri, September 02, 2011 1:01 pm
                To: "icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'PDP-WT'"
                <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
                
                
                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 & Policy
                
                
                
                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.
                
                
                
                -----Original Message-----
                From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
                Sent: 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 issue
                
                
                I 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