Hi, Speaking for myself, I have noted over previous versions of the report that it seemed biased towards the minority view, which is a bit odd. Perhaps less so now, but it does seem to me to still be the case. For one thing, I suggested taking out redundant text that repeats the same point in multiple parts of the report. This is on page 3: “Some DT members noted that the Bylaws describe the role of GNSO Council to be “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO,” which does not cover the non-policy decisions related to exercise of powers of the Empowered Community." And this is on page 4: "Some DT members noted that it was not sustainable for Council to continue taking positions on non-policy matters, since the ICANN Bylaws designate Council as “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO”. This could imply that Council is limited to policy matters and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters.” I really don’t understand why they both need to be in the report on two separate pages, when they pretty much say the exact same thing. I already asked for the section on page 4 to be removed. Is there a reason that I am missing to explain it wasn’t? Thanks. Amr
On Oct 11, 2016, at 11:06 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Ed,
I’m a bit surprised about your assessment of the report quality by counting quantities of words (letters???). It doesn’t help me to understand your specific points rather than it gives me the impression that you are not satisfied at all. After a long lasting debate I would have expected a concrete suggestion of text revisions as others did. That would at least help me to better understand how to continue.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Edward Morris Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 9:46 PM To: gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org ; Steve DelBianco Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Correction
Hi all,
A correction. In my word analysis I inadvertently reversed the percentages ascribed to the majority and minority positions in the document as a whole. This section should have read:
Cumulative:
Portions supporting majority positions: 325 words (31%) Portions supporting minority positions: 732 words (69%)
My apology for he error.
Kind Regards,
Ed Morris
From: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:43 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval
Have heard replies from Wolf-Ulrich, Amr, and Steve Metalitz so far, so let’s allow another hour and a half for others.
Unless there are significant objections, we’ll send our reports to Council today at 20 UTC.
If DT members have minor edits we can forward those to Council at any time.
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 11:52 AM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Cc: Yesim Nazlar <yesim.nazlar@icann.org>, "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval
Thanks to Steve, Darcy, Amr, and Matthew for providing edits to these docs.
Here’s what I’ve done with the attached final docs:
Accepted all of Darcy’s grammatical corrections in the matrix and report. (thank you!)
As Amor noted, we did not describe DT discussion of how to meet undefined Bylaws thresholds for Section 17.3 and Annex A - Sec 3.2(f) regarding recall of a GNSO director. I added to the report (page 2) and In the DT Recommendations column:
4. GNSO Procedures should define how GNSO Council meets two new thresholds described in the new Bylaws in these sections:
17.3 – Amending the CSC charter. Bylaws require approval by a “simple majority of … GNSO Council”, which is not a defined GNSO threshold in Bylaws Section 11.3(i).
Annex D, 3.2(f) - Removal of a GNSO Director. Bylaws require approval by “a three-quarters majority”, which is not a defined GNSO threshold in Bylaws Section 11.3(i). Five DT members believe that voting would occur only in the House that nominated the director, while other DT members said the entire GNSO should vote on this decision.
While Darcy wanted to move the background paragraph to later in the doc, I am keen to keep it at top so that readers who are not familiar with this DT will understand what our recommendations are all about. That background takes only 2 inches of space, so let’s please keep it at top of page 1.
I attempted to reconcile different edit suggestions. Added Amr’s edits on pages 3-4 to explain the majority’s rationale on why Council speaks for GNSO. (Steve Metalitz agreed). With those additions, I did not accept Matthew's desire to delete discussion about Council’s responsibility for non-policy matters. Those paragraphs are not repetitive, and were an essential part of the evolution of our group’s discussion. Thing is, readers are not going to go back to the call transcripts, so this “evolution” section is the place to describe what was considered (and rejected).
Accepted Amr’s new text about Nominating committee reps on page 7.
Matthew wanted to demote the note about 3 of 9 DT members abstaining, but this is essential to understand that recommendations did not reach a high level of consensus, and to explain why. This qualifier needs to precede the recommendations, in my view.
My hope is that DT members have no objection to submitting these docs to Council today — in time for their Council meeting on Thursday.
So, please indicate whether you have any objections by UTC today.
Thanks again for your serious attention to this project.
—Steve
_______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt _______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt