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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Stéphane,

As I commented some days ago:
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


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] Im 
Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 8. September 2011 10:29
An: Alex Gakuru
Cc: Diaz, Paul; David W. Maher; James M. Bladel; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; PDP-WT
Betreff: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Issue of who can request deferral of consideration 
of an issue


Sorry to jump in here, but just interested to read this group's comments on the 
homeless NCA.

I may have misunderstood Mike's comment, or not read the discussions you've had 
before, so this may be a point that you've already covered.

Although I agree that all councillors should be treated equally, I wonder about 
the logic of saying that the homeless NCA should be able to defer motions in 
the same way as the other Councillors. The HNCA is already in a situation where 
she/he is not treated on an equal footing, as she/he doesn't have a vote. That 
being the case, does it make sense to allow someone who does not vote to impact 
the consideration of a motion? Further, on who's behalf would the HNCA be 
making that call? The other 2 NCAs are part of a house, but the HNCA is in a 
different position.

And if we are adamant that all Councillors must be able to do the same things, 
what about the liaisons? I'd be curious to hear Alan's views on this: should 
the ALAC liaison for example be able to call for a motion to be deferred?

Just brainstorming here and as I said, you may all have already discussed this 
so forgive me if that's the case. This thread just caught my attention ;)

Stéphane



Le 8 sept. 2011 à 10:10, Alex Gakuru a écrit :

>
> Hi,
>
> Welcome back Mr. Neuman! Sorry all for chipping in late in the
> day...(been swamped with the kind of stuff that puts my ugali on the
> table.)
>
> My views here are aligned to Alan, Avri and James.
>
> Sorry cannot join today's call due to inescapable circumstances. Wish
> you a great call.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alex
>
> On 9/6/11, Diaz, Paul <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> +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
>>     
>>     
>>
>>
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>