On further thought, I note that this letter is to the Bylaws drafting team, not the Board.
That doesn’t alter my suggestions on consulting with individual SGs/Cs, and making sure there are no deviations identified – but it does assuage my concern that the comments will not be given serious consideration.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
As I think I understand from reviewing the thread, the current text now reads as follows:
Dear Bylaws Drafting Team:
The GNSO Council thanks you for your efforts in attempting to distill the instructions found in the CCWG-Accountability Report into a revised version of ICANN’s Bylaws. We note that
the draft Bylaws have generated significant public comment from members of the GNSO community.
We ask you to carefully review each of these comments and give them serious consideration. It is important that the revised Bylaws remain faithful to the CCWG-Accountability Report on
which we, as a Council, were called upon to vote in Marrakech. We are fully at your disposal should you wish to consult us on any issue raised in the comments generated by the GNSO community.
Kind regards,
James Bladel
If that’s the case, then I have no serious objection to sending it, although I do have some misgivings.
It doesn’t convey much beyond asking the Board to take their job seriously (and should we have to ask that in the first place?), and that we’re available for consultation. But we (in terms of the Council as a
whole) are not really available to explain the views files by the various SGs and Cs, as each of them emphasized different points – so maybe the letter should say that we are sure each of the separate groups making up the GNSO are available to further explain
their POV.
The real misgiving, now that we know when the Board has scheduled its vote (and the outcome is preordained, I think we’d all agree) is that, by saying nothing further, we concede by implication that a vote six
days after the closing of the comment period constitutes serious consideration by the Board.
At the least I think we should ask that they take steps, through consultation with their own lawyers and those advising the CCWG and CWG, to assure that that none of the comments has identified a draft Bylaws
provision that materially deviates from the final reports and recommendations – and that if they have, that the deviation has been cured.
Thanks for your consideration.
Best, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Thanks James. I think we just delete:
“These include:
[Paul McGrady to pull these links out of the public comment after it closes]”
If we aren’t prepared to draw attention to all of the comments by GNSO members, I don’t want to see a hierarchy in place by making some referred to directly and some “also of interest”. This is especially so
due to the lack of utility of the letter generally. When I asked that we send one, it was when I was still operating under the impression that there would be a good faith process by which the public comments were carefully reviewed and considered prior to
adoption of the bylaws. From what we have seen from Bruce’s email, that will not be the case.
Best to all,
Paul
If I’m understanding correctly, we could modify this sentence:
"We ask you to carefully review each of these comments and give them serious consideration.”
"We ask you to carefully review each of these comments, and any other submissions from members of the broader GNSO Community, and give them serious
consideration."
Likewise, excluding members of the GNSO community could be viewed as elevating comments from constituent bodies of the GNSO above actual users of ICANN services within the GNSO. To solve the problem,
how about let's not provide links, just tell them they need to take comments made by GNSO members seriously?
Sent from my iPhone
Fully agree with James here.
Regards,
Keith
Off the cuff, I have some concerns about Council going further than official positions by the SGs/Cs. Most individuals or organizations have some affiliation with the GNSO, and it would be difficult
to make a clear distinction. The risks of us referencing one comment, while leaving out one from an equivalent person or group (even if due to error) could be seen as Council endorsement.
Also, consider the scenario where there are significant differences between the position of a commenter versus their respective SG/C. If the RrSG comments in favor of chocolate ice cream, but
comments from GoDaddy favor vanilla, then by including both the Council could be perceived as undermining the consensus-building processes within that SG/C. In this case, the IPC & NTIA comments are probably aligned, but absent an analysis from Staff, we
should be cautious about inserting ourselves in to any position differences.
I understand your intention to present a list that is as comprehensive as possible, but I’m concerned that there’s no way to do so in a fair an equitable manner, and especially without creating
precedent for future comments. But I’d welcome thoughts from other Councilors on this point.
Thanks Marika. I think we have to go more granular than just the C’, SG’s etc. For example, INTA put in public comments. They are a member of the IPC and a therefore a member of the GNSO community.
Best,
Paul
I believe Bruce just answered question #1. With regards to bullet 3:
Thanks for kicking this off. Generally, I’m good with this letter. A few questions/comments:
-
Given the compressed timeline, can we ask Staff to confirm whether or not the Drafting Team will have an opportunity to amend the proposed bylaws before submitting to the Board? I’m assuming they will, but…
-
Should we also cc: the Board and/or CCWG Co-Chairs? (hedge)
-
With the Comment Period now closed, could we task someone from Policy Staff to assist Paul in gathering links to GNSO comments?
-
The Board is meeting this week to consider the draft bylaws. It is therefore imperative that we move quickly to get this sent. Councilors, please send edits/comments/concerns by EOD (Pacific) Monday to ensure that this is posted
overnight Tuesday.
Hi all,
On our last call, I volunteered t draft a short letter from James to the Bylaws Drafting Team. Here is the proposed body of that letter to be kicked around the Council list:
________
Dear Bylaws Drafting Team:
The GNSO Council thanks you for your efforts in attempting to distill the instructions found in the CCWG-Accountability Report into a revised version of ICANN’s Bylaws. We note that the draft Bylaws have generated
significant public comment from members of the GNSO community. These include:
[Paul McGrady to pull these links out of the public comment after it closes]
We ask you to carefully review each of these comments and give them serious consideration. It is important that the revised Bylaws remain faithful to the CCWG-Accountability Report on which we, as a Council, were
called upon to vote in Marrakech. We are fully at your disposal should you wish to consult us on any issue raised in the comments generated by the GNSO community.
Kind regards,
James Bladel
Best,
Paul
policy@paulmcgrady.com
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16