AMENDMENT - Acceptance of the Report from the Bylaws Drafting Team
Councilors – Attached and copied below, please find a proposed amendment to my earlier motion referenced above, in accordance with our discussions during last night’s working session. As a seconder, I would ask Rubens Kuhl to confirm whether he takes these changes as friendly. Thank you, J 1. MOTION – Acceptance of the Report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team and next steps (Motion deferred to 7 November 2016 from 13 October 2016) Made by: James Bladel Seconded by: Rubens Kuhl WHEREAS: 1. On 30 June 2016 the GNSO Council approved the creation of a Drafting Team (DT) that was to work with ICANN staff to “fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the revised Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities”; 2. In creating the DT, the GNSO Council requested that the DT provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan “which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016”; 3. During the course of the DT’s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and 4. The DT submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 12 October 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-e...). The GNSO Council has reviewed the DT’s report. RESOLVED: 1. The GNSO Council accepts the recommendations in the DT’s report as submitted. 2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council. 3. The GNSO Council requests that members of the DT make themselves available for consultation by ICANN Policy Staff as needed. 4. In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration. 5. As resolved previously, the GNSO Council intends to subject the adoption of the proposed modifications to existing procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws to a GNSO Supermajority vote. 6. The GNSO Council thanks the DT for its collaborative effort, especially in view the limited time frame available to the DT.
James, I do take those changes as friendly. Rubens
On Nov 7, 2016, at 10:53 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Councilors –
Attached and copied below, please find a proposed amendment to my earlier motion referenced above, in accordance with our discussions during last night’s working session.
As a seconder, I would ask Rubens Kuhl to confirm whether he takes these changes as friendly. Thank you, J
1. MOTION – Acceptance of the Report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team and next steps (Motion deferred to 7 November 2016 from 13 October 2016) Made by: James Bladel Seconded by: Rubens Kuhl
WHEREAS: 1. On 30 June 2016 the GNSO Council approved the creation of a Drafting Team (DT) that was to work with ICANN staff to “fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the revised Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities”; 2. In creating the DT, the GNSO Council requested that the DT provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan “which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016”; 3. During the course of the DT’s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and 4. The DT submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 12 October 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-e...) <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-en.pdf)>. The GNSO Council has reviewed the DT’s report.
RESOLVED:
1. The GNSO Council accepts the recommendations in the DT’s report as submitted. 2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council. 3. The GNSO Council requests that members of the DT make themselves available for consultation by ICANN Policy Staff as needed. 4. In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration. 5. As resolved previously, the GNSO Council intends to subject the adoption of the proposed modifications to existing procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws to a GNSO Supermajority vote. 6. The GNSO Council thanks the DT for its collaborative effort, especially in view the limited time frame available to the DT.
<Bylaws DT Updated Motion - 7 November 2016[1].docx>
Hi, Apologies for missing any discussions that I missed on this in Hyderabad, but wanted to offer my thoughts, as well as some questions before discussing this motion with the NCSG. Generally, I think this motion could be drafted far better. As is, I don’t plan on recommending that the NCSG vote against the motion, but I may recommend that at least one of our councillors attach a statement to the vote on this motion. Let me explain some of my specific concerns: 1) Whereas 3:
During the course of the DT’s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and
The use of divergent in this context, although accurate, could be misleading. It is true that there was disagreement on a key recommendation coming out of the DT, but “divergent” is somewhat of a technical term in the GNSO. This is because it is used to describe one of the WG consensus levels in the GNSO WG Guidelines (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf), and is described as "Divergence (also referred to as No Consensus) - a position where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless”. The first recommendation of the DT to assign the GNSO Council to act on behalf of the GNSO was given a “Strong support but significant opposition” designation as its consensus-level. As a member of the DT, I grudgingly supported this designation, as 3 of the 9 DT members were against this recommendation. That makes a third of the DT, and it seemed to me that this consensus level designation was a fair one. My reservation (which I did not voice) was that there was actually only one GNSO stakeholder group that opposed this recommendation, while the 3 others + NCA supported it. I’m not saying we need to revisit this now. However, there was no “divergence” in its technical sense on the DT. There was disagreement, which led to the “strong support but significant opposition”, although it could have arguably been designated as “Consensus” (not to be confused with “Full consensus”). 2) Resolved 1: Is there a reason why the GNSO Council is “accepting” the recommendations of the DT instead of “approving” it? This language was changed from the original motion, and I was curious what the significance is. In the past, I believe the GNSO Council has adopted WG final reports and recommendations. Since this is new to me, I would like to know if there is something I am missing. 3) Resolved 2:
The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council.
My understanding is that ICANN Legal needs to evaluate any proposed modifications to the ICANN bylaws, however, I understand that the Council will also be asking them to evaluate some changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures that do not require bylaws amendments. Substantively, I have no objection to this, as I have said in the past. However, since this legal review was not one of the DT recommendations, I would have preferred to separate this issue from the motion relevant to the bylaws-DT. Anyway…, no biggie. 4) Resolved 4:
In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration.
I find this resolved clause to be very strange. First…, again there is the use of the word “divergent”, which I believe should be replaced with something like “disagreement” or “lack of full consensus”. More importantly, the resolved clause attributes the Council’s decision to submit the new operating procedures to public comment to this divergence!! As is the case in the DT’s final report, it seems to me that this clause only serves to unnecessarily draw as much attention to the minority position beyond what is reasonable. The minority report attached to the DT’s final report is already mentioned in whereas clause 3, and holding public comment periods have been a long-standing practice when modifications to the GNSO Operating Procedures are being suggested, even when the WGs/Committees chartered by the Council make these suggestions with full consensus. Why is the public comment period here being attributed to the lack of consensus on the DT? It seems to me that there is a will to (to the extent possible) undermine the recommendations of the DT. This is not only evident in the motion, but even in the DT final report itself, where there is a great deal more emphasis on the minority position than is necessary. I’m curious on wether or not the motioner/seconder are open to more amendments to this motion. If so, I’d be happy to suggest some. Thanks. Amr
On Nov 7, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
James,
I do take those changes as friendly.
Rubens
On Nov 7, 2016, at 10:53 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Councilors –
Attached and copied below, please find a proposed amendment to my earlier motion referenced above, in accordance with our discussions during last night’s working session.
As a seconder, I would ask Rubens Kuhl to confirm whether he takes these changes as friendly. Thank you, J
1. MOTION – Acceptance of the Report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team and next steps (Motion deferred to 7 November 2016 from 13 October 2016) Made by: James Bladel Seconded by: Rubens Kuhl
WHEREAS: 1. On 30 June 2016 the GNSO Council approved the creation of a Drafting Team (DT) that was to work with ICANN staff to “fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the revised Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities”; 2. In creating the DT, the GNSO Council requested that the DT provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan “which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016”; 3. During the course of the DT’s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and 4. The DT submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 12 October 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-e...). The GNSO Council has reviewed the DT’s report.
RESOLVED:
1. The GNSO Council accepts the recommendations in the DT’s report as submitted. 2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council. 3. The GNSO Council requests that members of the DT make themselves available for consultation by ICANN Policy Staff as needed. 4. In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration. 5. As resolved previously, the GNSO Council intends to subject the adoption of the proposed modifications to existing procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws to a GNSO Supermajority vote. 6. The GNSO Council thanks the DT for its collaborative effort, especially in view the limited time frame available to the DT.
<Bylaws DT Updated Motion - 7 November 2016[1].docx>
Hi Amr – Thanks for your comments, and you have indeed picked up on some of the items that were the subject of extensive discussions in Hyderabad. I’ll try to address them individually below. (1) Regarding the use of “divergent” – We were trying to capture the spectrum of views without undermining the majority position. Perhaps in doing so we have mis-appropriated some of the terms that are typically reserved for PDP working groups. If “divergent” is causing trouble, perhaps an equivalent (but less loaded) term can be used, such as “diverse views” or “contrary” or “dissimilar”. (2) This was also discussed in India, and the wording was changed to avoid confusion, as the GNSO does not “adopt” or “approve” changes to the bylaws resulting from the Final Report, but instead submits these to the Board for approval. But in practical terms, there doesn’t seem to be any material difference in the next steps whether the Council “approves” or “adopts” or “accepts” the recommendations (3) The review by ICANN legal was going to happen in any case (and as Sam Eisner reported to Council, is already underway). But some on Council wanted to explicitly acknowledge this in the motion. (4) We can replace “divergent”, as noted in Item (1) I’m not married to the term. But the key point of this resolution was to ensure that the normal / minimum comment period be extended to at least 40 days. I hope these address your concerns. If not, please respond or propose alternative language. Thanks— J. Thanks— J. On 11/21/16, 6:50 , "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote: Hi, Apologies for missing any discussions that I missed on this in Hyderabad, but wanted to offer my thoughts, as well as some questions before discussing this motion with the NCSG. Generally, I think this motion could be drafted far better. As is, I don’t plan on recommending that the NCSG vote against the motion, but I may recommend that at least one of our councillors attach a statement to the vote on this motion. Let me explain some of my specific concerns: 1) Whereas 3: > During the course of the DT’s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and The use of divergent in this context, although accurate, could be misleading. It is true that there was disagreement on a key recommendation coming out of the DT, but “divergent” is somewhat of a technical term in the GNSO. This is because it is used to describe one of the WG consensus levels in the GNSO WG Guidelines (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf), and is described as "Divergence (also referred to as No Consensus) - a position where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless”. The first recommendation of the DT to assign the GNSO Council to act on behalf of the GNSO was given a “Strong support but significant opposition” designation as its consensus-level. As a member of the DT, I grudgingly supported this designation, as 3 of the 9 DT members were against this recommendation. That makes a third of the DT, and it seemed to me that this consensus level designation was a fair one. My reservation (which I did not voice) was that there was actually only one GNSO stakeholder group that opposed this recommendation, while the 3 others + NCA supported it. I’m not saying we need to revisit this now. However, there was no “divergence” in its technical sense on the DT. There was disagreement, which led to the “strong support but significant opposition”, although it could have arguably been designated as “Consensus” (not to be confused with “Full consensus”). 2) Resolved 1: Is there a reason why the GNSO Council is “accepting” the recommendations of the DT instead of “approving” it? This language was changed from the original motion, and I was curious what the significance is. In the past, I believe the GNSO Council has adopted WG final reports and recommendations. Since this is new to me, I would like to know if there is something I am missing. 3) Resolved 2: > The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council. My understanding is that ICANN Legal needs to evaluate any proposed modifications to the ICANN bylaws, however, I understand that the Council will also be asking them to evaluate some changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures that do not require bylaws amendments. Substantively, I have no objection to this, as I have said in the past. However, since this legal review was not one of the DT recommendations, I would have preferred to separate this issue from the motion relevant to the bylaws-DT. Anyway…, no biggie. 4) Resolved 4: > In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration. I find this resolved clause to be very strange. First…, again there is the use of the word “divergent”, which I believe should be replaced with something like “disagreement” or “lack of full consensus”. More importantly, the resolved clause attributes the Council’s decision to submit the new operating procedures to public comment to this divergence!! As is the case in the DT’s final report, it seems to me that this clause only serves to unnecessarily draw as much attention to the minority position beyond what is reasonable. The minority report attached to the DT’s final report is already mentioned in whereas clause 3, and holding public comment periods have been a long-standing practice when modifications to the GNSO Operating Procedures are being suggested, even when the WGs/Committees chartered by the Council make these suggestions with full consensus. Why is the public comment period here being attributed to the lack of consensus on the DT? It seems to me that there is a will to (to the extent possible) undermine the recommendations of the DT. This is not only evident in the motion, but even in the DT final report itself, where there is a great deal more emphasis on the minority position than is necessary. I’m curious on wether or not the motioner/seconder are open to more amendments to this motion. If so, I’d be happy to suggest some. Thanks. Amr > On Nov 7, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote: > > James, > > I do take those changes as friendly. > > Rubens > > >> On Nov 7, 2016, at 10:53 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote: >> >> Councilors – >> >> Attached and copied below, please find a proposed amendment to my earlier motion referenced above, in accordance with our discussions during last night’s working session. >> >> As a seconder, I would ask Rubens Kuhl to confirm whether he takes these changes as friendly. >> Thank you, >> J >> >> >> 1. MOTION – Acceptance of the Report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team and next steps >> (Motion deferred to 7 November 2016 from 13 October 2016) >> Made by: James Bladel >> Seconded by: Rubens Kuhl >> >> WHEREAS: >> 1. On 30 June 2016 the GNSO Council approved the creation of a Drafting Team (DT) that was to work with ICANN staff to “fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the revised Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities”; >> 2. In creating the DT, the GNSO Council requested that the DT provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan “which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016”; >> 3. During the course of the DT’s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and >> 4. The DT submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 12 October 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-e...). The GNSO Council has reviewed the DT’s report. >> >> RESOLVED: >> >> 1. The GNSO Council accepts the recommendations in the DT’s report as submitted. >> 2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council. >> 3. The GNSO Council requests that members of the DT make themselves available for consultation by ICANN Policy Staff as needed. >> 4. In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration. >> 5. As resolved previously, the GNSO Council intends to subject the adoption of the proposed modifications to existing procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws to a GNSO Supermajority vote. >> 6. The GNSO Council thanks the DT for its collaborative effort, especially in view the limited time frame available to the DT. >> >> <Bylaws DT Updated Motion - 7 November 2016[1].docx> >
Hi James, Thank you for this. It’s quite reassuring, and the accept vs. approve/adopt terminology makes sense to me now. I won’t suggest any amendments to the motion until I’ve had a chance to discuss this further with the NCSG. But thanks again, James. Your responses were very helpful in helping me prep for that discussion. Amr
On Nov 21, 2016, at 6:33 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Hi Amr –
Thanks for your comments, and you have indeed picked up on some of the items that were the subject of extensive discussions in Hyderabad. I’ll try to address them individually below.
(1) Regarding the use of “divergent” – We were trying to capture the spectrum of views without undermining the majority position. Perhaps in doing so we have mis-appropriated some of the terms that are typically reserved for PDP working groups. If “divergent” is causing trouble, perhaps an equivalent (but less loaded) term can be used, such as “diverse views” or “contrary” or “dissimilar”. (2) This was also discussed in India, and the wording was changed to avoid confusion, as the GNSO does not “adopt” or “approve” changes to the bylaws resulting from the Final Report, but instead submits these to the Board for approval. But in practical terms, there doesn’t seem to be any material difference in the next steps whether the Council “approves” or “adopts” or “accepts” the recommendations (3) The review by ICANN legal was going to happen in any case (and as Sam Eisner reported to Council, is already underway). But some on Council wanted to explicitly acknowledge this in the motion. (4) We can replace “divergent”, as noted in Item (1) I’m not married to the term. But the key point of this resolution was to ensure that the normal / minimum comment period be extended to at least 40 days.
I hope these address your concerns. If not, please respond or propose alternative language.
Thanks—
J.
Thanks— J.
On 11/21/16, 6:50 , "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi,
Apologies for missing any discussions that I missed on this in Hyderabad, but wanted to offer my thoughts, as well as some questions before discussing this motion with the NCSG. Generally, I think this motion could be drafted far better. As is, I don’t plan on recommending that the NCSG vote against the motion, but I may recommend that at least one of our councillors attach a statement to the vote on this motion. Let me explain some of my specific concerns:
1) Whereas 3:
During the course of the DT’s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and
The use of divergent in this context, although accurate, could be misleading. It is true that there was disagreement on a key recommendation coming out of the DT, but “divergent” is somewhat of a technical term in the GNSO. This is because it is used to describe one of the WG consensus levels in the GNSO WG Guidelines (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf), and is described as "Divergence (also referred to as No Consensus) - a position where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless”.
The first recommendation of the DT to assign the GNSO Council to act on behalf of the GNSO was given a “Strong support but significant opposition” designation as its consensus-level. As a member of the DT, I grudgingly supported this designation, as 3 of the 9 DT members were against this recommendation. That makes a third of the DT, and it seemed to me that this consensus level designation was a fair one. My reservation (which I did not voice) was that there was actually only one GNSO stakeholder group that opposed this recommendation, while the 3 others + NCA supported it. I’m not saying we need to revisit this now. However, there was no “divergence” in its technical sense on the DT. There was disagreement, which led to the “strong support but significant opposition”, although it could have arguably been designated as “Consensus” (not to be confused with “Full consensus”).
2) Resolved 1:
Is there a reason why the GNSO Council is “accepting” the recommendations of the DT instead of “approving” it? This language was changed from the original motion, and I was curious what the significance is. In the past, I believe the GNSO Council has adopted WG final reports and recommendations. Since this is new to me, I would like to know if there is something I am missing.
3) Resolved 2:
The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council.
My understanding is that ICANN Legal needs to evaluate any proposed modifications to the ICANN bylaws, however, I understand that the Council will also be asking them to evaluate some changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures that do not require bylaws amendments. Substantively, I have no objection to this, as I have said in the past. However, since this legal review was not one of the DT recommendations, I would have preferred to separate this issue from the motion relevant to the bylaws-DT. Anyway…, no biggie.
4) Resolved 4:
In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration.
I find this resolved clause to be very strange. First…, again there is the use of the word “divergent”, which I believe should be replaced with something like “disagreement” or “lack of full consensus”. More importantly, the resolved clause attributes the Council’s decision to submit the new operating procedures to public comment to this divergence!! As is the case in the DT’s final report, it seems to me that this clause only serves to unnecessarily draw as much attention to the minority position beyond what is reasonable. The minority report attached to the DT’s final report is already mentioned in whereas clause 3, and holding public comment periods have been a long-standing practice when modifications to the GNSO Operating Procedures are being suggested, even when the WGs/Committees chartered by the Council make these suggestions with full consensus. Why is the public comment period here being attributed to the lack of consensus on the DT?
It seems to me that there is a will to (to the extent possible) undermine the recommendations of the DT. This is not only evident in the motion, but even in the DT final report itself, where there is a great deal more emphasis on the minority position than is necessary. I’m curious on wether or not the motioner/seconder are open to more amendments to this motion. If so, I’d be happy to suggest some.
Thanks.
Amr
On Nov 7, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
James,
I do take those changes as friendly.
Rubens
On Nov 7, 2016, at 10:53 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Councilors –
Attached and copied below, please find a proposed amendment to my earlier motion referenced above, in accordance with our discussions during last night’s working session.
As a seconder, I would ask Rubens Kuhl to confirm whether he takes these changes as friendly. Thank you, J
1. MOTION – Acceptance of the Report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team and next steps (Motion deferred to 7 November 2016 from 13 October 2016) Made by: James Bladel Seconded by: Rubens Kuhl
WHEREAS: 1. On 30 June 2016 the GNSO Council approved the creation of a Drafting Team (DT) that was to work with ICANN staff to “fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the revised Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities”; 2. In creating the DT, the GNSO Council requested that the DT provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan “which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016”; 3. During the course of the DT’s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and 4. The DT submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 12 October 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-e...). The GNSO Council has reviewed the DT’s report.
RESOLVED:
1. The GNSO Council accepts the recommendations in the DT’s report as submitted. 2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council. 3. The GNSO Council requests that members of the DT make themselves available for consultation by ICANN Policy Staff as needed. 4. In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration. 5. As resolved previously, the GNSO Council intends to subject the adoption of the proposed modifications to existing procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws to a GNSO Supermajority vote. 6. The GNSO Council thanks the DT for its collaborative effort, especially in view the limited time frame available to the DT.
<Bylaws DT Updated Motion - 7 November 2016[1].docx>
Hi, After consulting with colleagues, I’d like to offer amendments to this motion (attached). I believe them to be very lightweight changes, but hopefully will help keep the motion straight-forward and focused on the task at hand before the Council. I am happy to answer any questions on this, and hope the motioner/seconder will consider the amendments friendly. Thanks. Amr
On Nov 21, 2016, at 8:49 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi James,
Thank you for this. It’s quite reassuring, and the accept vs. approve/adopt terminology makes sense to me now. I won’t suggest any amendments to the motion until I’ve had a chance to discuss this further with the NCSG. But thanks again, James. Your responses were very helpful in helping me prep for that discussion.
Amr
On Nov 21, 2016, at 6:33 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Hi Amr –
Thanks for your comments, and you have indeed picked up on some of the items that were the subject of extensive discussions in Hyderabad. I’ll try to address them individually below.
(1) Regarding the use of “divergent” – We were trying to capture the spectrum of views without undermining the majority position. Perhaps in doing so we have mis-appropriated some of the terms that are typically reserved for PDP working groups. If “divergent” is causing trouble, perhaps an equivalent (but less loaded) term can be used, such as “diverse views” or “contrary” or “dissimilar”. (2) This was also discussed in India, and the wording was changed to avoid confusion, as the GNSO does not “adopt” or “approve” changes to the bylaws resulting from the Final Report, but instead submits these to the Board for approval. But in practical terms, there doesn’t seem to be any material difference in the next steps whether the Council “approves” or “adopts” or “accepts” the recommendations (3) The review by ICANN legal was going to happen in any case (and as Sam Eisner reported to Council, is already underway). But some on Council wanted to explicitly acknowledge this in the motion. (4) We can replace “divergent”, as noted in Item (1) I’m not married to the term. But the key point of this resolution was to ensure that the normal / minimum comment period be extended to at least 40 days.
I hope these address your concerns. If not, please respond or propose alternative language.
Thanks—
J.
Thanks— J.
On 11/21/16, 6:50 , "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi,
Apologies for missing any discussions that I missed on this in Hyderabad, but wanted to offer my thoughts, as well as some questions before discussing this motion with the NCSG. Generally, I think this motion could be drafted far better. As is, I don’t plan on recommending that the NCSG vote against the motion, but I may recommend that at least one of our councillors attach a statement to the vote on this motion. Let me explain some of my specific concerns:
1) Whereas 3:
During the course of the DT’s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and
The use of divergent in this context, although accurate, could be misleading. It is true that there was disagreement on a key recommendation coming out of the DT, but “divergent” is somewhat of a technical term in the GNSO. This is because it is used to describe one of the WG consensus levels in the GNSO WG Guidelines (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf), and is described as "Divergence (also referred to as No Consensus) - a position where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless”.
The first recommendation of the DT to assign the GNSO Council to act on behalf of the GNSO was given a “Strong support but significant opposition” designation as its consensus-level. As a member of the DT, I grudgingly supported this designation, as 3 of the 9 DT members were against this recommendation. That makes a third of the DT, and it seemed to me that this consensus level designation was a fair one. My reservation (which I did not voice) was that there was actually only one GNSO stakeholder group that opposed this recommendation, while the 3 others + NCA supported it. I’m not saying we need to revisit this now. However, there was no “divergence” in its technical sense on the DT. There was disagreement, which led to the “strong support but significant opposition”, although it could have arguably been designated as “Consensus” (not to be confused with “Full consensus”).
2) Resolved 1:
Is there a reason why the GNSO Council is “accepting” the recommendations of the DT instead of “approving” it? This language was changed from the original motion, and I was curious what the significance is. In the past, I believe the GNSO Council has adopted WG final reports and recommendations. Since this is new to me, I would like to know if there is something I am missing.
3) Resolved 2:
The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council.
My understanding is that ICANN Legal needs to evaluate any proposed modifications to the ICANN bylaws, however, I understand that the Council will also be asking them to evaluate some changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures that do not require bylaws amendments. Substantively, I have no objection to this, as I have said in the past. However, since this legal review was not one of the DT recommendations, I would have preferred to separate this issue from the motion relevant to the bylaws-DT. Anyway…, no biggie.
4) Resolved 4:
In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration.
I find this resolved clause to be very strange. First…, again there is the use of the word “divergent”, which I believe should be replaced with something like “disagreement” or “lack of full consensus”. More importantly, the resolved clause attributes the Council’s decision to submit the new operating procedures to public comment to this divergence!! As is the case in the DT’s final report, it seems to me that this clause only serves to unnecessarily draw as much attention to the minority position beyond what is reasonable. The minority report attached to the DT’s final report is already mentioned in whereas clause 3, and holding public comment periods have been a long-standing practice when modifications to the GNSO Operating Procedures are being suggested, even when the WGs/Committees chartered by the Council make these suggestions with full consensus. Why is the public comment period here being attributed to the lack of consensus on the DT?
It seems to me that there is a will to (to the extent possible) undermine the recommendations of the DT. This is not only evident in the motion, but even in the DT final report itself, where there is a great deal more emphasis on the minority position than is necessary. I’m curious on wether or not the motioner/seconder are open to more amendments to this motion. If so, I’d be happy to suggest some.
Thanks.
Amr
On Nov 7, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
James,
I do take those changes as friendly.
Rubens
On Nov 7, 2016, at 10:53 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Councilors –
Attached and copied below, please find a proposed amendment to my earlier motion referenced above, in accordance with our discussions during last night’s working session.
As a seconder, I would ask Rubens Kuhl to confirm whether he takes these changes as friendly. Thank you, J
1. MOTION – Acceptance of the Report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team and next steps (Motion deferred to 7 November 2016 from 13 October 2016) Made by: James Bladel Seconded by: Rubens Kuhl
WHEREAS: 1. On 30 June 2016 the GNSO Council approved the creation of a Drafting Team (DT) that was to work with ICANN staff to “fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the revised Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities”; 2. In creating the DT, the GNSO Council requested that the DT provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan “which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016”; 3. During the course of the DT’s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and 4. The DT submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 12 October 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-e...). The GNSO Council has reviewed the DT’s report.
RESOLVED:
1. The GNSO Council accepts the recommendations in the DT’s report as submitted. 2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council. 3. The GNSO Council requests that members of the DT make themselves available for consultation by ICANN Policy Staff as needed. 4. In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration. 5. As resolved previously, the GNSO Council intends to subject the adoption of the proposed modifications to existing procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws to a GNSO Supermajority vote. 6. The GNSO Council thanks the DT for its collaborative effort, especially in view the limited time frame available to the DT.
<Bylaws DT Updated Motion - 7 November 2016[1].docx>
Wow, thanks for this detailed commentary Amr, much appreciated Stephanie PS my internet is broken, blame it on the rural under-served. Enjoy the peace and quiet, I hate trying to type on my BlackBerry but hope to be up and running by weekend. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network. Original Message From: Amr Elsadr Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 7:51 AM To: Rubens Kuhl Cc: James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] AMENDMENT - Acceptance of the Report from the Bylaws Drafting Team Hi, Apologies for missing any discussions that I missed on this in Hyderabad, but wanted to offer my thoughts, as well as some questions before discussing this motion with the NCSG. Generally, I think this motion could be drafted far better. As is, I don’t plan on recommending that the NCSG vote against the motion, but I may recommend that at least one of our councillors attach a statement to the vote on this motion. Let me explain some of my specific concerns: 1) Whereas 3:
During the course of the DT’s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and
The use of divergent in this context, although accurate, could be misleading. It is true that there was disagreement on a key recommendation coming out of the DT, but “divergent” is somewhat of a technical term in the GNSO. This is because it is used to describe one of the WG consensus levels in the GNSO WG Guidelines (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf), and is described as "Divergence (also referred to as No Consensus) - a position where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless”. The first recommendation of the DT to assign the GNSO Council to act on behalf of the GNSO was given a “Strong support but significant opposition” designation as its consensus-level. As a member of the DT, I grudgingly supported this designation, as 3 of the 9 DT members were against this recommendation. That makes a third of the DT, and it seemed to me that this consensus level designation was a fair one. My reservation (which I did not voice) was that there was actually only one GNSO stakeholder group that opposed this recommendation, while the 3 others + NCA supported it. I’m not saying we need to revisit this now. However, there was no “divergence” in its technical sense on the DT. There was disagreement, which led to the “strong support but significant opposition”, although it could have arguably been designated as “Consensus” (not to be confused with “Full consensus”). 2) Resolved 1: Is there a reason why the GNSO Council is “accepting” the recommendations of the DT instead of “approving” it? This language was changed from the original motion, and I was curious what the significance is. In the past, I believe the GNSO Council has adopted WG final reports and recommendations. Since this is new to me, I would like to know if there is something I am missing. 3) Resolved 2:
The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council.
My understanding is that ICANN Legal needs to evaluate any proposed modifications to the ICANN bylaws, however, I understand that the Council will also be asking them to evaluate some changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures that do not require bylaws amendments. Substantively, I have no objection to this, as I have said in the past. However, since this legal review was not one of the DT recommendations, I would have preferred to separate this issue from the motion relevant to the bylaws-DT. Anyway…, no biggie. 4) Resolved 4:
In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration.
I find this resolved clause to be very strange. First…, again there is the use of the word “divergent”, which I believe should be replaced with something like “disagreement” or “lack of full consensus”. More importantly, the resolved clause attributes the Council’s decision to submit the new operating procedures to public comment to this divergence!! As is the case in the DT’s final report, it seems to me that this clause only serves to unnecessarily draw as much attention to the minority position beyond what is reasonable. The minority report attached to the DT’s final report is already mentioned in whereas clause 3, and holding public comment periods have been a long-standing practice when modifications to the GNSO Operating Procedures are being suggested, even when the WGs/Committees chartered by the Council make these suggestions with full consensus. Why is the public comment period here being attributed to the lack of consensus on the DT? It seems to me that there is a will to (to the extent possible) undermine the recommendations of the DT. This is not only evident in the motion, but even in the DT final report itself, where there is a great deal more emphasis on the minority position than is necessary. I’m curious on wether or not the motioner/seconder are open to more amendments to this motion. If so, I’d be happy to suggest some. Thanks. Amr
On Nov 7, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
James,
I do take those changes as friendly.
Rubens
On Nov 7, 2016, at 10:53 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Councilors –
Attached and copied below, please find a proposed amendment to my earlier motion referenced above, in accordance with our discussions during last night’s working session.
As a seconder, I would ask Rubens Kuhl to confirm whether he takes these changes as friendly. Thank you, J
1. MOTION – Acceptance of the Report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team and next steps (Motion deferred to 7 November 2016 from 13 October 2016) Made by: James Bladel Seconded by: Rubens Kuhl
WHEREAS: 1. On 30 June 2016 the GNSO Council approved the creation of a Drafting Team (DT) that was to work with ICANN staff to “fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the revised Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities”; 2. In creating the DT, the GNSO Council requested that the DT provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan “which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016”; 3. During the course of the DT’s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and 4. The DT submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 12 October 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-e...). The GNSO Council has reviewed the DT’s report.
RESOLVED:
1. The GNSO Council accepts the recommendations in the DT’s report as submitted. 2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council. 3. The GNSO Council requests that members of the DT make themselves available for consultation by ICANN Policy Staff as needed. 4. In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration. 5. As resolved previously, the GNSO Council intends to subject the adoption of the proposed modifications to existing procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws to a GNSO Supermajority vote. 6. The GNSO Council thanks the DT for its collaborative effort, especially in view the limited time frame available to the DT.
<Bylaws DT Updated Motion - 7 November 2016[1].docx>
Are we going to have time to discuss this draft? I have a couple of issues with it.... It is a great pity that the french meeting carried on 15 minutes past its allotted time and removed the possiblity for an informal discussion on this. Stephanie On 2016-11-07 00:23, James M. Bladel wrote:
Councilors –
Attached and copied below, please find a proposed amendment to my earlier motion referenced above, in accordance with our discussions during last night’s working session.
As a seconder, I would ask Rubens Kuhl to confirm whether he takes these changes as friendly.
Thank you,
J
*1. MOTION – Acceptance of the Report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team and next steps*
*(Motion deferred to 7 November 2016 from 13 October 2016)*
*Made by: James Bladel*
*Seconded by: Rubens Kuhl*
WHEREAS:
1.On 30 June 2016 the GNSO Council approved the creation of a Drafting Team (DT) that was to work with ICANN staff to “fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the revised Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities”;
2.In creating the DT, the GNSO Council requested that the DT provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan “which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016”;
3.During the course of the DT’s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and
4.The DT submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 12 October 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-e...) <https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-en.pdf%29>. The GNSO Council has reviewed the DT’s report.
RESOLVED:
1.The GNSO Council accepts the recommendations in the DT’s report as submitted.
2.The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council.
3.The GNSO Council requests that members of the DT make themselves available for consultation by ICANN Policy Staff as needed.
4.In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration.
5.As resolved previously, the GNSO Council intends to subject the adoption of the proposed modifications to existing procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws to a GNSO Supermajority vote.
6.The GNSO Council thanks the DT for its collaborative effort, especially in view the limited time frame available to the DT.
All, I herewith withdraw the amendment submitted on behalf of the CSG. Regards Wolf-Ulrich Sent from my personal phone
Am 07.11.2016 um 13:16 schrieb Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>:
Are we going to have time to discuss this draft? I have a couple of issues with it.... It is a great pity that the french meeting carried on 15 minutes past its allotted time and removed the possiblity for an informal discussion on this.
Stephanie
On 2016-11-07 00:23, James M. Bladel wrote: Councilors –
Attached and copied below, please find a proposed amendment to my earlier motion referenced above, in accordance with our discussions during last night’s working session.
As a seconder, I would ask Rubens Kuhl to confirm whether he takes these changes as friendly. Thank you, J
1. MOTION – Acceptance of the Report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team and next steps (Motion deferred to 7 November 2016 from 13 October 2016) Made by: James Bladel Seconded by: Rubens Kuhl
WHEREAS: 1. On 30 June 2016 the GNSO Council approved the creation of a Drafting Team (DT) that was to work with ICANN staff to “fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the revised Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities”; 2. In creating the DT, the GNSO Council requested that the DT provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan “which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016”; 3. During the course of the DT’s work, strongly divergent views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report which included a minority report; and 4. The DT submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 12 October 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-e...). The GNSO Council has reviewed the DT’s report.
RESOLVED:
1. The GNSO Council accepts the recommendations in the DT’s report as submitted. 2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council. 3. The GNSO Council requests that members of the DT make themselves available for consultation by ICANN Policy Staff as needed. 4. In acknowledgement of the divergent views within the DT, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration. 5. As resolved previously, the GNSO Council intends to subject the adoption of the proposed modifications to existing procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws to a GNSO Supermajority vote. 6. The GNSO Council thanks the DT for its collaborative effort, especially in view the limited time frame available to the DT.
participants (5)
-
Amr Elsadr -
James M. Bladel -
Rubens Kuhl -
Stephanie Perrin -
Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben＠t-online.de