Hi Steve,
I regret that I do not agree with sending his report to Council this evening as proposed. Substantive matters relating to the report that arguably may be supported by a majority of group members are being discarded without adequate discussion, and a travelogue has been produced that features arguments proposed by a small minority of members (1/3 at best) rather than that proposed by the large majority (2/3) of members. As to the later, please note the following word totals:
Who section:
Portions supporting majority positions: 203 words (29%)
Portions supporting minority positions: 493 words (71%)
How section:
Portions supporting majority positions: 122 words (34%)
Portions supporting minority positions: 239 words (66%)
Cumulative:
Portions supporting majority positions: 732 words (69%)
Portions supporting minority positions: 325 words (31%)
The Chair has produced a report that best represents a minority report that acknowledges the majority position. This is compounded by presenting in the document a large chart, introduced by the Chair, that was an inconsequential part of discussions, receiving the support of only 2 drafting team members.
I understand that the nature of discussions my not result in equitable volume in a travelogue. That is why we have transcripts and recordings: so interested parties can take a look at the nature of discussions. That is NOT the purpose of a report that is supposed to report the findings of a working group to a commissioning body.
David Maher’s position, represented nowhere in this report, during much of the discussion consisted of few words: “out of scope”. A true and accurate travelogue would have represented this view in parts of our discussion.
As to a few specifics:
1. Any references to the views of individual constituencies and stakeholder groups must be removed.
No member of this drafting team was appointed by a constituency or stakeholder group. We had a very long and somewhat contentious discussion on Council about the representation of this drafting team. Each one of us was appointed by an individual councilor with Council having the opportunity, which it did not use, to alter the composition of this Team to reflect the composition of the GNSO. Each member of this drafting team can act in accordance to his or her own wishes. As DT members were neither appointed nor nominated by their Constituency or Stakeholder group their views should be ascribed to them personally rather than to any group they may wish to be a part of. They simply were not appointed to this group in a representative capacity.
2. This paragraph is simply wrong:
‘Note: Three DT members (IPC, ISPCP, and BC) abstained from indicating approval of Council voting thresholds, as they do not support Council exercising any of the new powers by voting within the present House-bound structure. Nonetheless, all DT members contributed to discussion and recommendations for voting thresholds by which GNSO Council should approve nominations and actions created under the new ICANN Bylaws.’
I refer to the word abstain, which in GNSO Operating Procedures §4.5 refers to instances where a Councilor does not vote on a particular matter or Motion before Council. The simple dictionary definition of abstain (Webster) consists of two definitional possibilities:
1. to choose not to do or have something, or
2.to choose not to vote
The three DT members referenced did not abstain on matters before this Drafting Team. They voted on where to locate the powers we were charged to examine should be exercised and lost. They then participated fully in all discussions, including voting on all threshold issues. That is not abstention: that is full participation. That their full participation does not indicate a reversal of their views on the previous vote which they lost is quite obvious. One does not flow from the other. Nevertheless, I would not be opposed to a small statement indicating same.
Let’s give Council what it asked for: an implementation plan. Towards that end:
1. I support sending the Council our recommendations stripped of the discussion. Recorded levels of support of every option, including all thresholds in which votes were taken, should be indicated.
2. Parties should be invited to submit minority or concurring reports, as indicated, to Council with the dicta currently contained in the proposed report and anything else they may wish to include for Council’s consideration. The current report is confusing for he uninitiated and reads more as a minority report acknowledging the majority position rather than as an accurate report of our implementation recommendations. That’s just not acceptable given our charge.
I should also note that the response deadline for approval of this report is inadequate. This, in effect, is a consensus call and we simply have not had enough time to hear from all of our DT members, many of whom are not located in North America and have not had a chance to view the final proposed document.
Kind Regards,
Ed Morris