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

["Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+2

 

 Paul A. Diaz 
 Policy & Ethics Manager

 

P 703-668-4961  www.networksolutions.com <Http://www.networksolutions.com> 

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of David W. Maher
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 2:20 PM
To: James M. Bladel; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'PDP-WT'
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Issue of who can request deferral of consideration 
of an issue

 

+1

 

David W. Maher                    
Senior Vice President - Law & Policy    
Public Interest Registry

+1 312 375 4849                    

 

From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 1:14 PM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'PDP-WT'
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Issue of who can request deferral of consideration 
of an issue

 

My opinion:

Since we have limited the total number of deferrals to 1, I'm less concerned 
about -who- requests the delay.  

 

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.


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.

 

THanks--

 

J.

 

        -------- Original Message --------
        Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Issue of who can request deferral of
        consideration of an issue
        From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        Date: Fri, September 02, 2011 12:46 pm
        To: "'PDP-WT'" <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
        
        
        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