Hi Tony, Thanks again for the hard work you've put in on this. The only input I'm aware of from Avri is her December 16th post where she requested "unanimous" be changed to something less encompassing. Specifically: Hi, I still request that unanimous in the text be replaced with something like 'most' or even 'a super majority' (not sure we can use the consensus words without a GNSO process). I will still not vote for it, and will write up a comment explaining why, but at least the letter would be correctly describing the situation in the council. I do not know how the vote will go, but I am pretty sure it will not be unanimous. Thanks avri I had absolutely no problem with her request. Obviously the vote was not going to be unanimous. I have no knowledge of any request from Avri, or anyone else, that the term "civil society" be deleted from the letter.
From the ISPCP perspective and I would suspect other Constituencies as well, we would also prefer the original text, but the agreement was the final version should reflect all requested changes received prior to the 31st. If your view, or members of your Constituency strongly differed from Avri’s request then it needed to be stated before the closure of that comment period. Unfortunately that didn’t happen.
Again, I've checked the archives and I see no submission from Avri or anyone else asking that you delete the term "civil society". If there had been I would have objected. I'm not clairvoyant: I can't object to changes that aren't in view. There was no indication onlist, prior to the 31st as you state, that the term 'civil society' was going to be dropped from the letter. Your reasoning seems to be that if Avri is going to oppose something it should be assumed that the rest of the NCSG councillors will be joining her in opposition, unless we speak up. You can't make that assumption. Our members give us the freedom to use our judgement to vote the way we feel best. We will, at times, have differing views reflecting, I hope, the diverse views of our membership. I supported the original letter, I supported Avri's requested changes (given her opposition) but, regrettably, I can't support the final version of the letter, which incorporates changes that I don't see requested anywhere on list. Thanks again for all of your hard work, Ed Hi everybody, I would like to thank Tony and others involved in crafting such a thoughtful document that largely, although not completely, represents my thoughts and, I believe, those of a great number of those in the noncommercial community whom I represent on Council. I regret, though, that due to changes made to the document since our last Council meeting I will be voting no rather than supporting submission of this public comment. Deletion of the term “civil society” from the final version makes it impossible for me to support submission. Reducing GNSO input to the NomCom, while increasing the role of the GAC, is something I very much oppose for many of the reasons stated in the original letter. I could support submission of that document. Reducing commercial representation, the subject of the revised text, is not something that particularly bothers me. With NPOC being denied an appointment to the NomCom, commercial interests within the GNSO are currently overrepresented there. That said, I was prepared to support the letter because greatly expanding representation of ALAC, the GAC, the ASO and ccNSO at the expense of the GNSO is simply bad policy and does nothing to solve the problem of the underrepresentation of noncommercial interests on the NomCom. A word about timing. Notification of the changed wording was sent to Council members on December 31st. Ballots were sent just after midnight on January 3rd. I would submit that notifying Council members of changes to a document on New Years Eve and expecting them to object within 2 days is a bad idea. In many parts of the world, including the jurisdiction I’m currently in, not a single working day has passed since we were notified of the change in wording. There simply was not sufficient time to object to the changes, at least for those of us partaking in New Years Eve celebrations and recovery thereof. We could have done better and should have. I recognize that the changed wording was made in response to objections by one of my fellow NCSG Council members, one I admire and respect very much. Despite my admiration and respect, we may occasionally disagree on issues and that’s something that should be acknowledged throughout the Council. The NCSG is a very diverse community. We recognize that by giving our Councilors the freedom to vote as they feel best. No one NCSG Councilor speaks for another. That said, I was not the only other Councilor from the NCSG who was considering supporting the original letter. I’m sorry that I, at least, will not be able to do so at this time. Kind Regards, Ed