For your review - draft motion and approach CCWG-Accountability
Colleagues - After working with Donna, Heather and the GNSO Council Staff, I'm pleased to present a Draft Motion for the GNSO Council to consider Work Stream 1 Recommendations of the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Report (attached). Additionally, we have developed a framework outlining the Council's approach when it ultimately moves to vote on this motion (also attached). While there is only one motion, the Council also has the option to conduct a vote on each of the 12 recommendations separately. If we go this route, each recommendation will include a discussion / statements by Councilors / SGs /Cs, and finally a vote. Once the vote is completed, we will report the results, along with any written statements from Councilors, to the co-chairs of the CCWG-Accountability. Please review and provide feedback. We can discuss in depth during our next session on 29 FEB. Thank you-- J.
James/Donna/Heather, Thanks guys for all of your hard work. This is good stuff. I've been in communication with our Member, a few members of the NCSG PC and one other NCSG Councillor and it appears that the preference in the NCSG, at least amongst some, is that we hold separate votes on each of the twelve recommendations. I thought about holding off on letting everyone know but figured it might help for planning purposes if staff and our leadership knew of our intent. As the wording of the Proposed Approach indicated that voting on each recommendation individually would be possible if requested by any Council member please note that is my intent to make such a request and I do not expect that intention will change between today and our open Council meeting in Marrakech. Respectfully, Edward Morris ---------------------------------------- From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 9:30 PM To: "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] For your review - draft motion and approach CCWG-Accountability Colleagues - After working with Donna, Heather and the GNSO Council Staff, I'm pleased to present a Draft Motion for the GNSO Council to consider Work Stream 1 Recommendations of the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Report (attached). Additionally, we have developed a framework outlining the Council's approach when it ultimately moves to vote on this motion (also attached). While there is only one motion, the Council also has the option to conduct a vote on each of the 12 recommendations separately. If we go this route, each recommendation will include a discussion / statements by Councilors / SGs /Cs, and finally a vote. Once the vote is completed, we will report the results, along with any written statements from Councilors, to the co-chairs of the CCWG-Accountability. Please review and provide feedback. We can discuss in depth during our next session on 29 FEB. Thank you-- J.
Thanks, Ed. I think we always assumed we would go this route, but wanted to leave the option open. Appreciate you getting in front of this. Thanks- J. From: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 16:31 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Subject: re: [council] For your review - draft motion and approach CCWG-Accountability James/Donna/Heather, Thanks guys for all of your hard work. This is good stuff. I've been in communication with our Member, a few members of the NCSG PC and one other NCSG Councillor and it appears that the preference in the NCSG, at least amongst some, is that we hold separate votes on each of the twelve recommendations. I thought about holding off on letting everyone know but figured it might help for planning purposes if staff and our leadership knew of our intent. As the wording of the Proposed Approach indicated that voting on each recommendation individually would be possible if requested by any Council member please note that is my intent to make such a request and I do not expect that intention will change between today and our open Council meeting in Marrakech. Respectfully, Edward Morris ________________________________ From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 9:30 PM To: "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] For your review - draft motion and approach CCWG-Accountability Colleagues - After working with Donna, Heather and the GNSO Council Staff, I'm pleased to present a Draft Motion for the GNSO Council to consider Work Stream 1 Recommendations of the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Report (attached). Additionally, we have developed a framework outlining the Council's approach when it ultimately moves to vote on this motion (also attached). While there is only one motion, the Council also has the option to conduct a vote on each of the 12 recommendations separately. If we go this route, each recommendation will include a discussion / statements by Councilors / SGs /Cs, and finally a vote. Once the vote is completed, we will report the results, along with any written statements from Councilors, to the co-chairs of the CCWG-Accountability. Please review and provide feedback. We can discuss in depth during our next session on 29 FEB. Thank you-- J.
Hello Edward,
I've been in communication with our Member, a few members of the NCSG PC and one other NCSG Councillor and it appears that the preference in the NCSG, at least amongst some, is that we hold separate votes on each of the twelve recommendations. I thought about holding off on letting everyone know but figured it might help for planning purposes if staff and our leadership knew of our intent. As the wording of the Proposed Approach indicated that voting on each recommendation individually would be possible if requested by any Council member please note that is my intent to make such a request and I do not expect that intention will change between today and our open Council meeting in Marrakech.
There is a little bit of history of a similar approach: In September 2007, the GNSO passed a resolution to send the new gTLD policy recommendations to the Board: http://www.gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#200709 The new gTLD report contains 20 policy recommendations: http://www.gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm The NCUC submitted a minority statement on Recommendation 6: "Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law. Examples of such principles of law include, but are not limited to, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, intellectual property treaties administered by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS). " See; http://www.gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm... And on Recommendation 20: " An application will be rejected if an expert panel determines that there is substantial opposition to it from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted. " See: http://www.gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm... Avri Doria as a nominating committee appointee to the GNSO council also submitted a minority report at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm#_Toc48210874\ All other recommendations received unanimous support. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Former chair of the GNSO Council
Hi Bruce, Thank you very much for the history lesson. I actually find it fascinating - so much of our institutional memory is in the heads of the experienced yet often is not being passed down to relative newcomers like myself. The sample responses are quite helpful - I'd prefer to keep any we or our individual Councillors submit similarly brief. Thanks again, Edward Morris ---------------------------------------- From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 9:57 AM To: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] For your review - draft motion and approach CCWG-Accountability Hello Edward,
I've been in communication with our Member, a few members of the NCSG PC and one other NCSG Councillor and it appears that the preference in the NCSG, at least amongst some, is that we hold separate votes on each of the twelve recommendations. I thought about holding off on letting everyone know but figured it might help for planning purposes if staff and our leadership knew of our intent.
As the wording of the Proposed Approach indicated that voting on each recommendation individually would be possible if requested by any Council member please note that is my intent to make such a request and I do not expect that intention will change between today and our open Council meeting in Marrakech.
There is a little bit of history of a similar approach: In September 2007, the GNSO passed a resolution to send the new gTLD policy recommendations to the Board: http://www.gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#200709 The new gTLD report contains 20 policy recommendations: http://www.gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm The NCUC submitted a minority statement on Recommendation 6: "Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law. Examples of such principles of law include, but are not limited to, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, intellectual property treaties administered by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS). " See; http://www.gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm #_Toc48210873 And on Recommendation 20: " An application will be rejected if an expert panel determines that there is substantial opposition to it from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted. " See: http://www.gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm #_Toc48210877 Avri Doria as a nominating committee appointee to the GNSO council also submitted a minority report at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm #_Toc48210874\ All other recommendations received unanimous support. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Former chair of the GNSO Council
Hi, Bruce, Let me second Ed in thanking you for the very useful historical perspective. I have to say that the minority statement from Avri sets a tough standard for a NCA minority opinion - that level of insightful analysis and rationale is something I can only look up to for inspiration, but I am unlikely to ever achieve anything that lives up to that. Julf On 26-02-16 10:53, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Edward,
I've been in communication with our Member, a few members of the NCSG PC and one other NCSG Councillor and it appears that the preference in the NCSG, at least amongst some, is that we hold separate votes on each of the twelve recommendations. I thought about holding off on letting everyone know but figured it might help for planning purposes if staff and our leadership knew of our intent.
As the wording of the Proposed Approach indicated that voting on each recommendation individually would be possible if requested by any Council member please note that is my intent to make such a request and I do not expect that intention will change between today and our open Council meeting in Marrakech.
There is a little bit of history of a similar approach:
In September 2007, the GNSO passed a resolution to send the new gTLD policy recommendations to the Board:
http://www.gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#200709
The new gTLD report contains 20 policy recommendations:
http://www.gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm
The NCUC submitted a minority statement on
Recommendation 6:
"Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law.
Examples of such principles of law include, but are not limited to, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, intellectual property treaties administered by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS). "
See; http://www.gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm...
And on
Recommendation 20:
" An application will be rejected if an expert panel determines that there is substantial opposition to it from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted. "
See: http://www.gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm...
Avri Doria as a nominating committee appointee to the GNSO council also submitted a minority report at:
http://www.gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm#_Toc48210874\
All other recommendations received unanimous support.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Former chair of the GNSO Council
Hello Johan,
I have to say that the minority statement from Avri sets a tough standard for a NCA minority opinion - that level of insightful analysis and rationale is something I can only look up to for inspiration, but I am unlikely to ever achieve anything that lives up to that.
Well - you are talking about the winner of the ICANN Multistakeholder Ethos Award in June 2014 :-) https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-06-23-en Regards, Bruce Tonkin
participants (4)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Edward Morris -
James M. Bladel -
Johan Helsingius