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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks guys, I see this has indeed been discussed here before ;)

Your points are very valid.

Stéphane



Le 8 sept. 2011 à 15:31, Alan Greenberg a écrit :

> 
> Stephane, to answer your questions:
> 
> - Yes, it has all been raised before - see my first note on the subject in 
> this thread.
> - The request to defer defers discussion also, and for this NCA, discussion 
> is their ONLY tool. If you take that away, their only function is to eat at 
> GNSO free lunches.
> - The NCA makes the call on their own behalf, just as many of the Councillors 
> who are allowed to vote their conscience and not be directed by their Const. 
> or SG.
> - Liaison by Bylaw definition are not Council members. (I wish that were not 
> so, but that is the way it is.)
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> At 08/09/2011 04:28 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 
>> 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
>> >
> 
>