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
>