FWIW I agree with Bill and Caroline that the motion, as it stands (or is
that stood?) does NOT prevent the Council from proposing/supporting/endorsing
a different process for future RTs. What it seems to me to do is to endorse a
baseline/default starting point that has the benefit of being uniform,
clear and resulting from the thoughtful efforts of the DT (on which all SGs
were represented).
I find it somewhat ironic - and perhaps a testimony to those who have
mentioned elsewhere that the question of what we as Councillors are meant to
do or be - that the question of whether (and to what extent) the Council is
acting as a "managerial" versus a legislative top-down body in the new GNSO
environment seems to be arising in various contexts recently. Regardless, I'm
having a bit of a hard time believing that Councillors elected by their
SGs would not do their best to fully represent that SG's interests, while
respecting the role of the Council and the need for consensus among the whole
ICANN community (even if this means, as is often the case, questioning or
proposing amendments to motions, as happened here. I fully believe that the
differences of opinion we are seeing on this issue is the result of various
Councillors balancing the demands and needs of their particular
SGs/constituencies with the overall effect to the community and the work of
the Cou
I understand that this may be more difficult - depending on the issue,
for instance - for certain SGs at certain points in time. However, and in this
particular context, I'm inclined to give greater weight to the deliberations
and recommendations of the DT, especially as it was a broadly representative
team and it remains open to us at a future date to require and/or justify
a different process.
Cheers
Mary
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
>>>
From: |
William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> |
To: |
<KnobenW@telekom.de> |
CC: |
<cgomes@verisign.com>, <rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM>,
<council@gnso.icann.org> |
Date: |
6/16/2010 6:43 PM |
Subject: |
Re: AW: [council] Motion to approve AOC
endorsement |
Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
As I tried to explain,
the amended motion does not preclude using the
same process after the next two RTs. But it doesn't cement it like
some GNSO folks were feeling
before
A parallel small point, the unamended motion does
not preclude the Council revisiting the process after
the next two RTs if issues are identified that merit tweak. No
cement or other building materials bind us to follow this or any other
process we don't prefer.
This
I guess is consistent with Kristina's earlier comments
that Council " has been greatly restricted in the
restructuring and the initially proposed mechanism goes beyond
that role," and that "having a slightly more complicated process
at the SG level is far preferable to having the Council take on an
SG role and make nominations independent of the community."
But per previous I don't quite get the notion that elected
representatives of SGs working together in Council are somehow
separate from and would be acting above/independent of SGs in
voting on endorsements. Does that only hold here, or is it
true of any and all Council decisions? If we adopt this
language, are we collectively establishing the premise that
Council is not a representative body that can act on behalf of its
constituents? I'd think it important to be clear what we're
saying here. I understand CSG wants to talk about this
Saturday in the non-contracted house meeting, which will
presumably help, but it seems like a conversation for the wider
Council and community too if for no other reason than the Council
(?) will have to vote on it.
[WUK:
] It
is more about the question of the council's competences. According
to the bylaws "The GNSO Council
is responsible for managing the policy
development process of the GNSO". Since the
activities around the AoC could be seen as lying outside these
competences it is advisable to ascertain the GNSO as a whole
endorses the process. In other words: where the council
competences are not in question we won't have such a
discussion.
Determining whether the GNSO as a whole supports or
opposes a particular decision on our plate would be an interesting new
requirement for Council action. We could, for example, henceforth
require a consultation and consensus formation on http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709
before taking any action. I'm sure there are some folks there
who'd like to weigh in. But in lieu of such a requirement, Council
representatives act in accordance with the norms and customs of their
respective communities and of the democratically elected Council.
An interesting question then is whether other SGs and the Council
as a whole should set aside that approach, redefine its role, and base
its actions on any one SG's internal norms and dynamics. I'm open
to persuasion, but a priori this seems like an unusual foundation for
collective action.
Cheers,
Bill
|