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<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 11:52 AM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Cc: Yesim Nazlar <yesim.nazlar@icann.org<mailto:yesim.nazlar@icann.org>>, "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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
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 ---------------------------------------- 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
Hi, Commenting on a specific point Ed raised:
On Oct 11, 2016, at 10:38 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@TOAST.NET> wrote:
[SNIP]
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.
I’m concerned that the disagreement here is just on wording, not on substance. Abstentions hold specific meaning in Council voting. To my knowledge, I have no recollection of GNSO WG members abstaining on positions in the past. They either support or do not support them. “abstained from indicating approval” to me, sounds like they did not support, which is true. The follow-up sentence to this beginning with “Nonetheless, all DT members…,” helps to clarify this. A simple solution to this may be to replace “abstained from indicating approval” to something like “reject”. Additionally, my recollection is that the three DT members rejected the Council exercising the new powers on behalf of the GNSO, but this section says that they rejected (or abstained from indicating approval) the Council voting thresholds, which is not the same thing. If I’m not mistaken, the decision on “who” would exercise the powers on behalf of the GNSO was made prior to beginning discussions on the thresholds at all. At that point, we had only generally said that we could create new thresholds, if deemed necessary. Thanks. Amr
Hi again, It may also be helpful to readers of our report to include the consensus level on each of the recommendations the DT has made to the recommendations themselves. This is not a requirement, but is pretty standard practice on GNSO PDP WGs. Thanks. Amr
On Oct 11, 2016, at 10:37 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi,
Commenting on a specific point Ed raised:
On Oct 11, 2016, at 10:38 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@TOAST.NET> wrote:
[SNIP]
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.
I’m concerned that the disagreement here is just on wording, not on substance. Abstentions hold specific meaning in Council voting. To my knowledge, I have no recollection of GNSO WG members abstaining on positions in the past. They either support or do not support them. “abstained from indicating approval” to me, sounds like they did not support, which is true. The follow-up sentence to this beginning with “Nonetheless, all DT members…,” helps to clarify this. A simple solution to this may be to replace “abstained from indicating approval” to something like “reject”.
Additionally, my recollection is that the three DT members rejected the Council exercising the new powers on behalf of the GNSO, but this section says that they rejected (or abstained from indicating approval) the Council voting thresholds, which is not the same thing. If I’m not mistaken, the decision on “who” would exercise the powers on behalf of the GNSO was made prior to beginning discussions on the thresholds at all. At that point, we had only generally said that we could create new thresholds, if deemed necessary.
Thanks.
Amr _______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt
Amr — Good point about Consensus level, and I thought a lot about that. GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf>), at Section 3.6, suggests two possible designations for our recommendations: Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree. Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it. I’d say we had Strong support but significant opposition on the Who and How questions described in the Evolution section of our report. And for the recommendations on pages 1-2, I’d say we had Consensus — but qualified by the abstention of CSG reps. As to whether we drop any discussion of how the DT came to its recommendation, that’s against the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf>). Specifically: 1. In cases of Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, an effort should be made to document that variance in viewpoint and to present any Minority View recommendations that may have been made. Documentation of Minority View recommendations normally depends on text offered by the proponent(s). In all cases of Divergence, the WG Chair should encourage the submission of minority viewpoint(s). From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 4:11 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval Hi again, It may also be helpful to readers of our report to include the consensus level on each of the recommendations the DT has made to the recommendations themselves. This is not a requirement, but is pretty standard practice on GNSO PDP WGs. Thanks. Amr On Oct 11, 2016, at 10:37 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> wrote: Hi, Commenting on a specific point Ed raised: On Oct 11, 2016, at 10:38 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@TOAST.NET<mailto:egmorris1@TOAST.NET>> wrote: [SNIP] 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. I’m concerned that the disagreement here is just on wording, not on substance. Abstentions hold specific meaning in Council voting. To my knowledge, I have no recollection of GNSO WG members abstaining on positions in the past. They either support or do not support them. “abstained from indicating approval” to me, sounds like they did not support, which is true. The follow-up sentence to this beginning with “Nonetheless, all DT members…,” helps to clarify this. A simple solution to this may be to replace “abstained from indicating approval” to something like “reject”. Additionally, my recollection is that the three DT members rejected the Council exercising the new powers on behalf of the GNSO, but this section says that they rejected (or abstained from indicating approval) the Council voting thresholds, which is not the same thing. If I’m not mistaken, the decision on “who” would exercise the powers on behalf of the GNSO was made prior to beginning discussions on the thresholds at all. At that point, we had only generally said that we could create new thresholds, if deemed necessary. Thanks. Amr _______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt _______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt
You're right Amr. When I joined the DT I abstained to answer the question who should represent the GNSO on the EC and the related voting procedure since we had an ongoing discussion within our constituency at this time. As a result of this discussion I was directed not to vote in favour of the council. Knowing that this could be a minority view we decided not to refrain from the discussion on voting thresholds. So in my case 2. could also read: "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, ...” Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 9:37 PM To: egmorris1@toast.net Cc: gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix --final version for DT approval Hi, Commenting on a specific point Ed raised:
On Oct 11, 2016, at 10:38 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@TOAST.NET> wrote:
[SNIP]
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.
I’m concerned that the disagreement here is just on wording, not on substance. Abstentions hold specific meaning in Council voting. To my knowledge, I have no recollection of GNSO WG members abstaining on positions in the past. They either support or do not support them. “abstained from indicating approval” to me, sounds like they did not support, which is true. The follow-up sentence to this beginning with “Nonetheless, all DT members…,” helps to clarify this. A simple solution to this may be to replace “abstained from indicating approval” to something like “reject”. Additionally, my recollection is that the three DT members rejected the Council exercising the new powers on behalf of the GNSO, but this section says that they rejected (or abstained from indicating approval) the Council voting thresholds, which is not the same thing. If I’m not mistaken, the decision on “who” would exercise the powers on behalf of the GNSO was made prior to beginning discussions on the thresholds at all. At that point, we had only generally said that we could create new thresholds, if deemed necessary. Thanks. Amr _______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt
Thanks Steve. I support sending the recommendations without the travelogue. I am not convinced it's necessary to add it. We just need to say what we decided and what we recommend. On 11 Oct 2016 9:39 p.m., "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
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
------------------------------ *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
Thanks, Farzi. I just sent a reply to Ed’s email. As to your suggestion to drop any discussion of how the DT came to its recommendation, that’s against the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf>). Specifically: 1. In cases of Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, an effort should be made to document that variance in viewpoint and to present any Minority View recommendations that may have been made. Documentation of Minority View recommendations normally depends on text offered by the proponent(s). In all cases of Divergence, the WG Chair should encourage the submission of minority viewpoint(s). Per your suggestion, we moved the Evolution discussion to the end of our report. But as long as the above guidelines are controlling our work, we cannot simply drop that material from the report. Best, Steve From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 3:59 PM To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval Thanks Steve. I support sending the recommendations without the travelogue. I am not convinced it's necessary to add it. We just need to say what we decided and what we recommend. On 11 Oct 2016 9:39 p.m., "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: 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<http://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 ________________________________ From: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:43 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 11:52 AM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Cc: Yesim Nazlar <yesim.nazlar@icann.org<mailto:yesim.nazlar@icann.org>>, "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt
+1 David Maher Sent from ALCATEL ONE TOUCH POP7 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks Steve. I support sending the recommendations without the travelogue. I am not convinced it's necessary to add it. We just need to say what we decided and what we recommend. On 11 Oct 2016 9:39 p.m., "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: 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<http://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 ________________________________ From: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:43 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 11:52 AM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Cc: Yesim Nazlar <yesim.nazlar@icann.org<mailto:yesim.nazlar@icann.org>>, "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt
David — glad to see you’re back online, since we promised Council they’d have our report today. You replied below to Farzi’s email, to which I sent this reply yesterday: As for dropping any discussion of how the DT came to its recommendation, that’s against the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf>). Specifically: 1. In cases of Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, an effort should be made to document that variance in viewpoint and to present any Minority View recommendations that may have been made. Documentation of Minority View recommendations normally depends on text offered by the proponent(s). In all cases of Divergence, the WG Chair should encourage the submission of minority viewpoint(s). We did move the Evolution discussion to the end of our report. But as long as the above guidelines are controlling our work, we cannot simply drop that material from the report. Best, Steve From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of David Maher <dmaher@pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org>> Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 5:19 AM To: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>>, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval +1 David Maher Sent from ALCATEL ONE TOUCH POP7 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks Steve. I support sending the recommendations without the travelogue. I am not convinced it's necessary to add it. We just need to say what we decided and what we recommend. On 11 Oct 2016 9:39 p.m., "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: 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<http://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 ________________________________ From: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:43 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 11:52 AM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Cc: Yesim Nazlar <yesim.nazlar@icann.org<mailto:yesim.nazlar@icann.org>>, "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt
OK Sent from ALCATEL ONE TOUCH POP7 Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote: David — glad to see you’re back online, since we promised Council they’d have our report today. You replied below to Farzi’s email, to which I sent this reply yesterday: As for dropping any discussion of how the DT came to its recommendation, that’s against the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf>). Specifically: 1. In cases of Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, an effort should be made to document that variance in viewpoint and to present any Minority View recommendations that may have been made. Documentation of Minority View recommendations normally depends on text offered by the proponent(s). In all cases of Divergence, the WG Chair should encourage the submission of minority viewpoint(s). We did move the Evolution discussion to the end of our report. But as long as the above guidelines are controlling our work, we cannot simply drop that material from the report. Best, Steve From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of David Maher <dmaher@pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org>> Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 5:19 AM To: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>>, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval +1 David Maher Sent from ALCATEL ONE TOUCH POP7 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks Steve. I support sending the recommendations without the travelogue. I am not convinced it's necessary to add it. We just need to say what we decided and what we recommend. On 11 Oct 2016 9:39 p.m., "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: 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<http://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 ________________________________ From: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:43 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 11:52 AM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Cc: Yesim Nazlar <yesim.nazlar@icann.org<mailto:yesim.nazlar@icann.org>>, "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt
Ed — the majority views have prevailed on Who (Council) and How (voting by House). Nonetheless, minority DT members proceeded in good faith and with significant effort to recommend Council voting thresholds for the new rights and responsibilities. That’s how ICANN working groups are supposed to work, and I thin this one worked quite well — despite the divergent views. As chair, I wanted the record to describe divergent views accurately. Amr added some words in his markup last night, and I accepted all of his words. If there are more words to add, by all means send them over. But I think you’d agree that counting words does not matter nearly as much as counting votes. And when we counted votes, your views prevailed in every instance. So I’m understandably disappointed if you’re suggesting this DT may not send its reports to Council tonight, as we all planned for two weeks ago and have discussed on our recent calls. Would you suggest that we inform Council that the DT needs more time? Then again, maybe you are registering your dissatisfaction with the “travelogue,” and would allow the reports to go to council as-is, in time for the council meeting on Thursday. I’m hoping that’s the case, but I await your reply … Best, Steve From: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: "egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 3:38 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval 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 ________________________________ From: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:43 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 11:52 AM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Cc: Yesim Nazlar <yesim.nazlar@icann.org<mailto:yesim.nazlar@icann.org>>, "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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
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
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
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
Hi Amr - I believe that I suggested more or less the same. The repetition of the same perspective is unfortunate particularly as it is made very explicit up front and in the recommendations section. Matthew On 11/10/2016 21:04, Amr Elsadr wrote:
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
Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt
-- -------------- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987
Hi Matt, Correct, which is why I felt your suggestion prior to Monday’s call reflected what I had also wanted to send in. It’d be very helpful if some rationale is provided on why there is repetition of the same text pointing out the minority position on two pages of the report (now pages 3 and 4). Thanks. Amr
On Oct 12, 2016, at 12:36 AM, matthew shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
Hi Amr - I believe that I suggested more or less the same. The repetition of the same perspective is unfortunate particularly as it is made very explicit up front and in the recommendations section.
Matthew
On 11/10/2016 21:04, Amr Elsadr wrote:
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
Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt
-- -------------- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987
participants (7)
-
Amr Elsadr -
David W. Maher -
Edward Morris -
farzaneh badii -
matthew shears -
Steve DelBianco -
WUKnoben