Hi On Jun 15, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

Thank you very much for the very clear and precise red-line version Wolf and thanks also for including my suggested amendment.

Bill/ Caroline,

Do you accept these amendments as friendly?

As I've said I don't particularly see limiting which candidates we can talk about in which order as an improvement, but since the point has elicited little comment here I'm guessing nobody else is too concerned and I should let it go. And I like the addition of the Chuck clause, "SG’s should only propose additional candidates that are of a different geographical location or gender than their primary candidate." But even so, before saying whether I accept the amendment as friendly, I'd like to understand it, and would appreciate clarification from CSG on the following two points: First, the amendment changes * "the GNSO Council formed a drafting team" to "the GNSO formed..." * "GNSO Council endorsements" to "GNSO endorsements" and * "the GNSO Council desires to adopt the AOC-RR Drafting Team proposed process" to "the GNSO desires.." 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. Second, particularly as chair of the drafting team, I would like to understand what is envisioned by striking "for all future AOC review team selections" and limiting the mechanism to just the pending WHOIS and SSR, since this is contrary to the prior mandate from, um, the Council. Is the idea that the drafting team will become a permanent body and we will have to reword things and adopt fresh processes and motions for each RT cycle? How for example might future language be different from what we have on the table now? Would much appreciate any help getting my head around this. Thanks, Bill

Hi, I don't see why we need to define for every RT a new process, it is quite weird to do that when in the same time we are trying to handle with important time constraints all the ongoing PDP and it is against any logic ( we can be flexible but there is time when we need a stable solution IMHO). maybe the current process is not the best for some people but changing it for each RT won't necessarily make it better. Rafik 2010/6/16 <KnobenW@telekom.de>

Bill,

I hope it is not that complicated to explain and understand (see comments inserted).

Regards Wolf-Ulrich

------------------------------ *Von:* William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 16. Juni 2010 08:16 *An:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@gnso.icann.org *Betreff:* Re: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement

Hi

On Jun 15, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

Thank you very much for the very clear and precise red-line version Wolf and thanks also for including my suggested amendment. Bill/ Caroline, Do you accept these amendments as friendly?

As I've said I don't particularly see limiting which candidates we can talk about in which order as an improvement, but since the point has elicited little comment here I'm guessing nobody else is too concerned and I should let it go. And I like the addition of the Chuck clause, "SG’s should only propose additional candidates that are of a different geographical location or gender than their primary candidate." But even so, before saying whether I accept the amendment as friendly, I'd like to understand it, and would appreciate clarification from CSG on the following two points:

First, the amendment changes * "the GNSO Council formed a drafting team" to "the GNSO formed..." * "GNSO Council endorsements" to "GNSO endorsements" and * "the GNSO Council desires to adopt the AOC-RR Drafting Team proposed process" to "the GNSO desires.."

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.

Second, particularly as chair of the drafting team, I would like to understand what is envisioned by striking "for all future AOC review team selections" and limiting the mechanism to just the pending WHOIS and SSR, since this is contrary to the prior mandate from, um, the Council. Is the idea that the drafting team will become a permanent body and we will have to reword things and adopt fresh processes and motions for each RT cycle? How for example might future language be different from what we have on the table now? [WUK: ] There's no intention to permanently establish a drafting team. But fixing the process "for all future AoC RT selections" appeared too definitive with respect to a fast changing environment. The amendment does not exclude the opportunity that all future AoC RTs would follow this process.

Would much appreciate any help getting my head around this.

Thanks,

Bill

As I stated before, I prefer approving a process that could be used after the next two RTs but if it is important for some to definitely revisit it I can live with that. Whichever way we go, we will likely learn lessons from our first three attempts at this. It is also possible that the RTs will learn lessons that could result in changes to the process as well, in which case we might want to revisit our process then anyway. When we look at our endorsement process before the New gTLD RT, at least we won't have to start from scratch and we could even decide that the process worked well for us so little else needs to be done. Chuck From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 1:46 PM To: Rafik Dammak Cc: KnobenW@telekom.de; Gomes, Chuck; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement It would be helpful to know if any other members of the drafting team have input either way? The process and motion were the products of a collective endeavor.... Bill On Jun 16, 2010, at 3:36 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi, I don't see why we need to define for every RT a new process, it is quite weird to do that when in the same time we are trying to handle with important time constraints all the ongoing PDP and it is against any logic ( we can be flexible but there is time when we need a stable solution IMHO). maybe the current process is not the best for some people but changing it for each RT won't necessarily make it better. Rafik 2010/6/16 <KnobenW@telekom.de> Bill, I hope it is not that complicated to explain and understand (see comments inserted). Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Juni 2010 08:16 An: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement Hi On Jun 15, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Thank you very much for the very clear and precise red-line version Wolf and thanks also for including my suggested amendment. Bill/ Caroline, Do you accept these amendments as friendly? As I've said I don't particularly see limiting which candidates we can talk about in which order as an improvement, but since the point has elicited little comment here I'm guessing nobody else is too concerned and I should let it go. And I like the addition of the Chuck clause, "SG's should only propose additional candidates that are of a different geographical location or gender than their primary candidate." But even so, before saying whether I accept the amendment as friendly, I'd like to understand it, and would appreciate clarification from CSG on the following two points: First, the amendment changes * "the GNSO Council formed a drafting team" to "the GNSO formed..." * "GNSO Council endorsements" to "GNSO endorsements" and * "the GNSO Council desires to adopt the AOC-RR Drafting Team proposed process" to "the GNSO desires.." 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. Second, particularly as chair of the drafting team, I would like to understand what is envisioned by striking "for all future AOC review team selections" and limiting the mechanism to just the pending WHOIS and SSR, since this is contrary to the prior mandate from, um, the Council. Is the idea that the drafting team will become a permanent body and we will have to reword things and adopt fresh processes and motions for each RT cycle? How for example might future language be different from what we have on the table now? [WUK: ] There's no intention to permanently establish a drafting team. But fixing the process "for all future AoC RT selections" appeared too definitive with respect to a fast changing environment. The amendment does not exclude the opportunity that all future AoC RTs would follow this process. Would much appreciate any help getting my head around this. Thanks, Bill *********************************************************** 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 ***********************************************************

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

I am ok with the amendments but would rather see us define a process that we can stick to for all future RTs, rather than revisit this every time. That was our original intent after all. And I don't see that this precludes the Council from revisiting the process at a later stage if the need arises. Caroline. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: 16 June 2010 18:46 To: Rafik Dammak Cc: KnobenW@telekom.de; cgomes@verisign.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement It would be helpful to know if any other members of the drafting team have input either way? The process and motion were the products of a collective endeavor.... Bill On Jun 16, 2010, at 3:36 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi, I don't see why we need to define for every RT a new process, it is quite weird to do that when in the same time we are trying to handle with important time constraints all the ongoing PDP and it is against any logic ( we can be flexible but there is time when we need a stable solution IMHO). maybe the current process is not the best for some people but changing it for each RT won't necessarily make it better. Rafik 2010/6/16 <KnobenW@telekom.de> Bill, I hope it is not that complicated to explain and understand (see comments inserted). Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Juni 2010 08:16 An: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: [council] Motion to approve AOC endorsement Hi On Jun 15, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Thank you very much for the very clear and precise red-line version Wolf and thanks also for including my suggested amendment. Bill/ Caroline, Do you accept these amendments as friendly? As I've said I don't particularly see limiting which candidates we can talk about in which order as an improvement, but since the point has elicited little comment here I'm guessing nobody else is too concerned and I should let it go. And I like the addition of the Chuck clause, "SG's should only propose additional candidates that are of a different geographical location or gender than their primary candidate." But even so, before saying whether I accept the amendment as friendly, I'd like to understand it, and would appreciate clarification from CSG on the following two points: First, the amendment changes * "the GNSO Council formed a drafting team" to "the GNSO formed..." * "GNSO Council endorsements" to "GNSO endorsements" and * "the GNSO Council desires to adopt the AOC-RR Drafting Team proposed process" to "the GNSO desires.." 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. Second, particularly as chair of the drafting team, I would like to understand what is envisioned by striking "for all future AOC review team selections" and limiting the mechanism to just the pending WHOIS and SSR, since this is contrary to the prior mandate from, um, the Council. Is the idea that the drafting team will become a permanent body and we will have to reword things and adopt fresh processes and motions for each RT cycle? How for example might future language be different from what we have on the table now? [WUK: ] There's no intention to permanently establish a drafting team. But fixing the process "for all future AoC RT selections" appeared too definitive with respect to a fast changing environment. The amendment does not exclude the opportunity that all future AoC RTs would follow this process. Would much appreciate any help getting my head around this. Thanks, Bill *********************************************************** 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 ***********************************************************