The following motion was tabled in our 18 Dec 08 Council meeting to allow for some wording edits that a couple people volunteered to submit. This is just a reminder for those who were planning to suggest edits. Chuck Motion 3 (tabled until 8 January meeting) Made by: Chuck Gomes Seconded: Adrain Kinderis Whereas both the GNSO and ccNSO are anticipating implementation of processes to introduce IDN TLDs in 2009, Resolve 1) the GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the New gTLD or ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs in the root before the other unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree, and 2) fast track IDN ccTLDs should not be entered into the root if they do not have an enforceable commitment to do the following as gTLDs must do: i) follow minimal security and stability requirements, IDN Guidelines and IDN standards; ii) pay ICANN fees sufficient to ensure that IDN ccTLDs are fully self-funding and are not cross-subsidized by other ICANN activities.
To make all our lives simpler and in particular to make constituency consultation practical, could we desist from the recent practice of posting multiple contradictory motions on the same topic before a meeting ?It is less than helpful to have motions that have not even been seconded placed on the wiki and then discussed at a meeting. This is especially true when the same proposer has posted other motions on the same topic ! If a motion has any merit, then it should have found at least one other poor soul on Council to support it before it makes an agenda. To seek a seconder at the meeting itself, detracts from our credibility as a decision making body. Too often a motion seems to have been seconded at the last moment more on the grounds of "I like so and so and thus I will be nice and support their motion", rather than based on a rational view of the content of the motion itself as discussed with constituents. Focus, efficiency, progress, - let these be our resolutions for 2009. Philip
Philip, Do you have specific concerns about motions on the table for tomorrow's meeting? If so, it is not clear to me which ones you are referring to. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 8:32 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Council procedures To make all our lives simpler and in particular to make constituency consultation practical, could we desist from the recent practice of posting multiple contradictory motions on the same topic before a meeting ?It is less than helpful to have motions that have not even been seconded placed on the wiki and then discussed at a meeting. This is especially true when the same proposer has posted other motions on the same topic ! If a motion has any merit, then it should have found at least one other poor soul on Council to support it before it makes an agenda. To seek a seconder at the meeting itself, detracts from our credibility as a decision making body. Too often a motion seems to have been seconded at the last moment more on the grounds of "I like so and so and thus I will be nice and support their motion", rather than based on a rational view of the content of the motion itself as discussed with constituents. Focus, efficiency, progress, - let these be our resolutions for 2009. Philip
Hi, In my personal view, a wiki is a work sheet where council can contribute whatever they like. Likewise for the motions wiki, i see it as a place where we can work out the language and hopefully come to something we agree on. But yes, only the motions that are made and seconded get voted on. What I have hoped would happen is that people would discuss the motions and their issues with them on the list so that following practices of openness and discussion we could arrive at agreed language by the time we had the meeting. Unfortunately we have less substantive discussion between calls then I hope for. For substantive motion to be voted on it needs to be available for at least a week before the meeting. Are you indicating that a motion should made and seconded at least a week before the meeting in addition to the proposed text being made available? If this is a practice that has the consensus of the council I am sure we could try to follow it. Council practice to date has been somewhat informal but been determined by practice and consensus, and certainly not following the procedures of formal rules of order. I do not think that having a motion seconded at a meeting is a detriment to credibility as I believe this is a very common practice in voting organizations. Of course as the procedures develop for the bicameral largely non voting council in the later half of 2009, things may work very differently. Another type of motion that I have included in the wiki are the procedurals one - these are generally the only motions I make, i.e. those that are required by the bylaws etc., I will endeavor to get seconders for them as early as possible. Though often the seconder comes out of the language negotiation phase we have in the meetings. Again it would be better for this to occur on the list before hand, but it mostly doesn't. If we want to get anything done, we need to do it when we can. a. On 7 Jan 2009, at 08:32, Philip Sheppard wrote:
To make all our lives simpler and in particular to make constituency consultation practical, could we desist from the recent practice of posting multiple contradictory motions on the same topic before a meeting ?It is less than helpful to have motions that have not even been seconded placed on the wiki and then discussed at a meeting. This is especially true when the same proposer has posted other motions on the same topic !
If a motion has any merit, then it should have found at least one other poor soul on Council to support it before it makes an agenda. To seek a seconder at the meeting itself, detracts from our credibility as a decision making body. Too often a motion seems to have been seconded at the last moment more on the grounds of "I like so and so and thus I will be nice and support their motion", rather than based on a rational view of the content of the motion itself as discussed with constituents.
Focus, efficiency, progress, - let these be our resolutions for 2009. Philip
Thanks Avri ... I'm fine with a wiki as a tool to aid drafting. Its just that by the eve of a meeting I would like to be clear on what motions stand a chance of success and command support. I see no merit in consulting my constituency on a motion that may never actually be valid - especially if there are other better / simpler ones there in place. We need to be clear on what we strive for, not hedge our bets and sow confusion along the way. That's all Philip
Good examples of the advantage of having predrafted motions without seconds and sometimes even without a mover are motions related to the initiation of a PDP. Personally, I think the benefits of having predrafted motions without movers or seconds exceed any problems that may cause. Just my opinion. Clearly, that should be done with care to avoid overcomplicating our business. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 10:47 AM To: 'Avri Doria'; 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] Council procedures
Thanks Avri ... I'm fine with a wiki as a tool to aid drafting. Its just that by the eve of a meeting I would like to be clear on what motions stand a chance of success and command support.
I see no merit in consulting my constituency on a motion that may never actually be valid - especially if there are other better / simpler ones there in place.
We need to be clear on what we strive for, not hedge our bets and sow confusion along the way. That's all
Philip
participants (3)
-
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Philip Sheppard