Re: AW: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement
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 Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
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, On Jun 16, 2010, at 11:48 PM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote: 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 Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership
Bill, following the NCPH discussion on the topic: could you now accept the amendment as friendly? Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Mary Wong [mailto:MWong@piercelaw.edu] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. Juni 2010 06:39 An: william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Cc: rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM; council@gnso.icann.org; cgomes@verisign.com Betreff: Re: AW: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement 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 Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> 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, On Jun 16, 2010, at 11:48 PM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote: 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 <http://www.piercelaw.edu/>
Hi Wolf-Ulrich, I was just about to come back to this, you beat me to the punch. Having had the opportunity yesterday to hear a bit more on the thinking, I guess I'm still of the view I shared on the last council call, since: 1. We had a drafting team comprising reps of all SGs that worked collaboratively and agreed a text. This was on the table for some time internally and then in the Council before concerns were expressed just prior to consideration of the motion. IMO, the DT having done what was asked of it, its text deserves a chance to be voted on. 2. I still don't see why it is necessary to codify the sequence in which Councilors may discuss possible additional diversity endorsements, or to limit the conditions under which they may discuss the whole pool of applicants. I trust Councilors to of course talk first about candidates for whom SGs have expressed preferences, I can't imagine the conversation in which they'd refuse to. 3. The drafting team was mandated to propose a process that could be used for RT endorsements going forward. If subsequent experience suggests that it'd make sense to revisit and tweak the process, we would do that. I don't see why we should assume at the front end that there will be problems and hence limit our agreement to just the next two RTs. 4. As discussed in today's meeting, it has become clear in recent days that there a different views in play about the nature and proper role of the Council. To the extent that the amendment is based one particular view, it seems premature to set that philosophical baseline in this instance. We need to have a broader and more probing discussion of this somewhere down the line and see if we can come to some shared understanding. So let's treat it as unfriendly and whatever Councilors decide in their SG representative capacities, fine. Cheers, Bill On Jun 20, 2010, at 6:07 PM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:
Bill,
following the NCPH discussion on the topic: could you now accept the amendment as friendly?
Regards Wolf-Ulrich
Von: Mary Wong [mailto:MWong@piercelaw.edu] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. Juni 2010 06:39 An: william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Cc: rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM; council@gnso.icann.org; cgomes@verisign.com Betreff: Re: AW: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement
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 Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
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,
On Jun 16, 2010, at 11:48 PM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:
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
<IMAGE.jpg>
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake ***********************************************************
This could lead to a situation where the GNSO has to deal with applications without having an agreed process. This is not in our interest and should be avoided. Let's talk about. Maybe there are constructive views from other parties? Regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Gesendet: Sonntag, 20. Juni 2010 19:08 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Cc: GNSO Council List; Gomes, Chuck Betreff: Re: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement Hi Wolf-Ulrich, I was just about to come back to this, you beat me to the punch. Having had the opportunity yesterday to hear a bit more on the thinking, I guess I'm still of the view I shared on the last council call, since: 1. We had a drafting team comprising reps of all SGs that worked collaboratively and agreed a text. This was on the table for some time internally and then in the Council before concerns were expressed just prior to consideration of the motion. IMO, the DT having done what was asked of it, its text deserves a chance to be voted on. 2. I still don't see why it is necessary to codify the sequence in which Councilors may discuss possible additional diversity endorsements, or to limit the conditions under which they may discuss the whole pool of applicants. I trust Councilors to of course talk first about candidates for whom SGs have expressed preferences, I can't imagine the conversation in which they'd refuse to. 3. The drafting team was mandated to propose a process that could be used for RT endorsements going forward. If subsequent experience suggests that it'd make sense to revisit and tweak the process, we would do that. I don't see why we should assume at the front end that there will be problems and hence limit our agreement to just the next two RTs. 4. As discussed in today's meeting, it has become clear in recent days that there a different views in play about the nature and proper role of the Council. To the extent that the amendment is based one particular view, it seems premature to set that philosophical baseline in this instance. We need to have a broader and more probing discussion of this somewhere down the line and see if we can come to some shared understanding. So let's treat it as unfriendly and whatever Councilors decide in their SG representative capacities, fine. Cheers, Bill On Jun 20, 2010, at 6:07 PM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote: Bill, following the NCPH discussion on the topic: could you now accept the amendment as friendly? Regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: Mary Wong [mailto:MWong@piercelaw.edu] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. Juni 2010 06:39 An: william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Cc: rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM; council@gnso.icann.org; cgomes@verisign.com Betreff: Re: AW: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement 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 Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
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, On Jun 16, 2010, at 11:48 PM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote: 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 <http://www.piercelaw.edu/> <IMAGE.jpg> *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake ***********************************************************
Thank you Bill for responding. We will now consider the amendment as unfriendly and will vote on it before we vote on the motion. Chuck From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 1:08 PM To: <KnobenW@telekom.de> Cc: GNSO Council List; Gomes, Chuck Subject: Re: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement Hi Wolf-Ulrich, I was just about to come back to this, you beat me to the punch. Having had the opportunity yesterday to hear a bit more on the thinking, I guess I'm still of the view I shared on the last council call, since: 1. We had a drafting team comprising reps of all SGs that worked collaboratively and agreed a text. This was on the table for some time internally and then in the Council before concerns were expressed just prior to consideration of the motion. IMO, the DT having done what was asked of it, its text deserves a chance to be voted on. 2. I still don't see why it is necessary to codify the sequence in which Councilors may discuss possible additional diversity endorsements, or to limit the conditions under which they may discuss the whole pool of applicants. I trust Councilors to of course talk first about candidates for whom SGs have expressed preferences, I can't imagine the conversation in which they'd refuse to. 3. The drafting team was mandated to propose a process that could be used for RT endorsements going forward. If subsequent experience suggests that it'd make sense to revisit and tweak the process, we would do that. I don't see why we should assume at the front end that there will be problems and hence limit our agreement to just the next two RTs. 4. As discussed in today's meeting, it has become clear in recent days that there a different views in play about the nature and proper role of the Council. To the extent that the amendment is based one particular view, it seems premature to set that philosophical baseline in this instance. We need to have a broader and more probing discussion of this somewhere down the line and see if we can come to some shared understanding. So let's treat it as unfriendly and whatever Councilors decide in their SG representative capacities, fine. Cheers, Bill On Jun 20, 2010, at 6:07 PM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote: Bill, following the NCPH discussion on the topic: could you now accept the amendment as friendly? Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Mary Wong [mailto:MWong@piercelaw.edu] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. Juni 2010 06:39 An: william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Cc: rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM; council@gnso.icann.org; cgomes@verisign.com Betreff: Re: AW: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement 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 Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> 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, On Jun 16, 2010, at 11:48 PM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote: 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 <IMAGE.jpg> <http://www.piercelaw.edu/> *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake ***********************************************************
participants (4)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Mary Wong -
William Drake