Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Another LAST CALL on revised DT report
A few thoughts I have, and I’m sorry I didn’t have the opportunity to share them earlier during everyone else’s commentary. On page 1, we call out “Strong support but significant opposition” about Council speaking for the GNSO, but we don’t do the same for the rest of the recommendations. I second Amr’s suggestion that we call out consensus level for each of our four recommendations. Regarding item 2 from below, I recommend a bit of a language change shown in red below to more accurately reflect that this is an opinion of certain DT members: “DT members from the Commercial Stakeholders Group said Council should not decide non-policy matters, since ICANN Bylaws say Council is “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO,” and it is their position that this language This implies that Council is limited to policy and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters. On the other hand, some DT members noted that there is no provision in the Bylaws for any group, be it Council or the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to assume these new powers and that there is currently no procedure for GNSO Stakeholder Groups to handle these matters.” Regarding the yellow highlighting above, I remember our discussions on this a bit differently. I may be confusing it with another discussion since the “some DT members” language doesn’t indicate which of us we’re discussing, but I think many DT members said that the “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO” language doesn’t prohibit Council from working on non-policy matters. Do we have any feedback from David Maher to these various drafts/emails? Thanks, Darcy From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 4:01 PM To: matthew shears <mshears@cdt.org>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Another LAST CALL on revised DT report In the interest of getting this done, I offer the attached revised report, with these changes: 1. Made the page 1 edit proposed by Wolf-Ulrich in response to Amr, and added level of consensus, as requested by Amr. It now reads: Note: Three DT members (IPC, ISPCP, and BC) do not support Council exercising any of the new powers by voting within the present House-bound structure. The recommendation that Council would speak for GNSO therefore has “Strong support but significant opposition”. Nonetheless, all DT members contributed to consensus recommendations for voting thresholds on the assumption that GNSO Council would approve nominations and actions created under the new ICANN Bylaws. 2. On page 4 we follow Matthew’s request to shorten the “not sustainable” point while retaining Amr's added counter-arguments. It now reads: DT members from the Commercial Stakeholders Group said Council should not decide non-policy matters, since ICANN Bylaws say Council is “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO”. This implies that Council is limited to policy and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters. On the other hand, some DT members noted that there is no provision in the Bylaws for any group, be it Council or the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to assume these new powers and that there is currently no procedure for GNSO Stakeholder Groups to handle these matters. For those of you counting words and looking for balance, that paragraph is now 49 words for each point of view! So, are we good to go??? Please reply by 12 UTC on Wednesday 12-Oct. —Steve From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:36 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Correction 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. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:21 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval Amr — Good point about Consensus level, and I thought a lot about that. GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link), 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). 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). _______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt
Support these suggested edits. Thanks Darcy. Matthew On 12/10/2016 06:50, Darcy Southwell wrote:
A few thoughts I have, and I’m sorry I didn’t have the opportunity to share them earlier during everyone else’s commentary.
On page 1, we call out “Strong support but significant opposition” about Council speaking for the GNSO, but we don’t do the same for the rest of the recommendations. I second Amr’s suggestion that we call out consensus level for each of our four recommendations.
Regarding item 2 from below, I recommend a bit of a language change shown in red below to more accurately reflect that this is an opinion of certain DT members:
“DT members from the Commercial Stakeholders Group said Council should not decide non-policy matters, since ICANN Bylaws say Council is “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO,” and it is their position that this language This implies that Council is limited to policy and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters. On the other hand, some DT members noted that there is no provision in the Bylaws for any group, be it Council or the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to assume these new powers and that there is currently no procedure for GNSO Stakeholder Groups to handle these matters.”
Regarding the yellow highlighting above, I remember our discussions on this a bit differently. I may be confusing it with another discussion since the “some DT members” language doesn’t indicate which of us we’re discussing, but I think many DT members said that the “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO” language doesn’t prohibit Council from working on non-policy matters.
Do we have any feedback from David Maher to these various drafts/emails?
Thanks,
Darcy
*From: *<gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> *Date: *Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 4:01 PM *To: *matthew shears <mshears@cdt.org>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-bylaws-dt] Another LAST CALL on revised DT report
In the interest of getting this done, I offer the attached revised report, with these changes:
1. Made the page 1 edit proposed by Wolf-Ulrich in response to Amr, and added level of consensus, as requested by Amr. It now reads:
Note: Three DT members (IPC, ISPCP, and BC) do not support Council exercising any of the new powers by voting within the present House-bound structure. The recommendation that Council would speak for GNSO therefore has “Strong support but significant opposition”. Nonetheless, all DT members contributed to consensus recommendations for voting thresholds on the assumption that GNSO Council would approve nominations and actions created under the new ICANN Bylaws.
2. On page 4 we follow Matthew’s request to shorten the “not sustainable” point while retaining Amr's added counter-arguments. It now reads:
DT members from the Commercial Stakeholders Group said Council should not decide non-policy matters, since ICANN Bylaws say Council is “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO”. This implies that Council is limited to policy and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters. On the other hand, some DT members noted that there is no provision in the Bylaws for any group, be it Council or the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to assume these new powers and that there is currently no procedure for GNSO Stakeholder Groups to handle these matters.
For those of you counting words and looking for balance, that paragraph is now 49 words for each point of view!
So, are we good to go??? Please reply by 12 UTC on Wednesday 12-Oct.
—Steve
*From: *<gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org <mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> *Date: *Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:36 PM *To: *Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> *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] Correction
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.
*From: *Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> *Date: *Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:21 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
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 oppositio*n - 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).
_______________________________________________ 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, Thanks for this Darcy. On the consensus levels my understanding is, and Steve can correct me if I am mistaken, is that the distinction between recommendation 1 and the others is that the BC voted against one, and for the others. On the suggested changes to the text, I personally like them, and believe they help to more effectively explain the differing opinions on the DT. Thanks again. Amr
On Oct 12, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com> wrote:
A few thoughts I have, and I’m sorry I didn’t have the opportunity to share them earlier during everyone else’s commentary.
On page 1, we call out “Strong support but significant opposition” about Council speaking for the GNSO, but we don’t do the same for the rest of the recommendations. I second Amr’s suggestion that we call out consensus level for each of our four recommendations.
Regarding item 2 from below, I recommend a bit of a language change shown in red below to more accurately reflect that this is an opinion of certain DT members:
“DT members from the Commercial Stakeholders Group said Council should not decide non-policy matters, since ICANN Bylaws say Council is “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO,” and it is their position that this language This implies that Council is limited to policy and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters. On the other hand, some DT members noted that there is no provision in the Bylaws for any group, be it Council or the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to assume these new powers and that there is currently no procedure for GNSO Stakeholder Groups to handle these matters.”
Regarding the yellow highlighting above, I remember our discussions on this a bit differently. I may be confusing it with another discussion since the “some DT members” language doesn’t indicate which of us we’re discussing, but I think many DT members said that the “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO” language doesn’t prohibit Council from working on non-policy matters.
Do we have any feedback from David Maher to these various drafts/emails?
Thanks, Darcy
From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 4:01 PM To: matthew shears <mshears@cdt.org>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Another LAST CALL on revised DT report
In the interest of getting this done, I offer the attached revised report, with these changes:
1. Made the page 1 edit proposed by Wolf-Ulrich in response to Amr, and added level of consensus, as requested by Amr. It now reads:
Note: Three DT members (IPC, ISPCP, and BC) do not support Council exercising any of the new powers by voting within the present House-bound structure. The recommendation that Council would speak for GNSO therefore has “Strong support but significant opposition”. Nonetheless, all DT members contributed to consensus recommendations for voting thresholds on the assumption that GNSO Council would approve nominations and actions created under the new ICANN Bylaws.
2. On page 4 we follow Matthew’s request to shorten the “not sustainable” point while retaining Amr's added counter-arguments. It now reads:
DT members from the Commercial Stakeholders Group said Council should not decide non-policy matters, since ICANN Bylaws say Council is “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO”. This implies that Council is limited to policy and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters. On the other hand, some DT members noted that there is no provision in the Bylaws for any group, be it Council or the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to assume these new powers and that there is currently no procedure for GNSO Stakeholder Groups to handle these matters.
For those of you counting words and looking for balance, that paragraph is now 49 words for each point of view!
So, are we good to go??? Please reply by 12 UTC on Wednesday 12-Oct.
—Steve
From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:36 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Correction
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.
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:21 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval
Amr —
Good point about Consensus level, and I thought a lot about that. GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link), 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). 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).
_______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt
Okay, we’re at 12 UTC so here’s a final version reflecting edits requested by Darcy and supported by Amr and Matt. Darcy — the previous draft did say that all of the 4 recommendations are by consensus: "Nonetheless, all DT members contributed to consensus recommendations for voting thresholds on the assumption that GNSO Council would approve nominations and actions created under the new ICANN Bylaws". But I made that clearer by adding quotes, caps, and bold for “Consensus” in the attached on page 1 and below: Three DT members (IPC, ISPCP, and BC) do not support Council exercising any of the new powers by voting within the present House-bound structure. The recommendation that Council would speak for GNSO therefore has “Strong support but significant opposition”. Nonetheless, all DT members contributed to “Consensus” recommendations for voting thresholds on the assumption that GNSO Council would approve nominations and actions created under the new ICANN Bylaws. In the big matrix doc, I copied the above text to page 1 so the level of consensus is clear. I made Darcy’s edits to page 4 as requested below, and changed “some DT members” to “Most DT members”: DT members from the Commercial Stakeholders Group said Council should not decide non-policy matters, since ICANN Bylaws say Council is “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO” and it is their position that this limits Council to policy, and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters. On the other hand, most DT members noted that there is no provision in the Bylaws for any group, be it Council or the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to assume these new powers and that there is currently no procedure for GNSO Stakeholder Groups to handle these matters. With that, I believe staff can forward these docs to Council today, like we promised when we asked for the 2 week extension. Thanks again to everyone for your efforts. From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 6:38 AM To: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com<mailto:darcy.southwell@endurance.com>> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "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] Another LAST CALL on revised DT report Hi, Thanks for this Darcy. On the consensus levels my understanding is, and Steve can correct me if I am mistaken, is that the distinction between recommendation 1 and the others is that the BC voted against one, and for the others. On the suggested changes to the text, I personally like them, and believe they help to more effectively explain the differing opinions on the DT. Thanks again. Amr On Oct 12, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com<mailto:darcy.southwell@endurance.com>> wrote: A few thoughts I have, and I’m sorry I didn’t have the opportunity to share them earlier during everyone else’s commentary. On page 1, we call out “Strong support but significant opposition” about Council speaking for the GNSO, but we don’t do the same for the rest of the recommendations. I second Amr’s suggestion that we call out consensus level for each of our four recommendations. Regarding item 2 from below, I recommend a bit of a language change shown in red below to more accurately reflect that this is an opinion of certain DT members: “DT members from the Commercial Stakeholders Group said Council should not decide non-policy matters, since ICANN Bylaws say Council is “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO,” and it is their position that this language This implies that Council is limited to policy and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters. On the other hand, some DT members noted that there is no provision in the Bylaws for any group, be it Council or the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to assume these new powers and that there is currently no procedure for GNSO Stakeholder Groups to handle these matters.” Regarding the yellow highlighting above, I remember our discussions on this a bit differently. I may be confusing it with another discussion since the “some DT members” language doesn’t indicate which of us we’re discussing, but I think many DT members said that the “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO” language doesn’t prohibit Council from working on non-policy matters. Do we have any feedback from David Maher to these various drafts/emails? Thanks, Darcy From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 4:01 PM To: matthew shears <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Another LAST CALL on revised DT report In the interest of getting this done, I offer the attached revised report, with these changes: 1. Made the page 1 edit proposed by Wolf-Ulrich in response to Amr, and added level of consensus, as requested by Amr. It now reads: Note: Three DT members (IPC, ISPCP, and BC) do not support Council exercising any of the new powers by voting within the present House-bound structure. The recommendation that Council would speak for GNSO therefore has “Strong support but significant opposition”. Nonetheless, all DT members contributed to consensus recommendations for voting thresholds on the assumption that GNSO Council would approve nominations and actions created under the new ICANN Bylaws. 2. On page 4 we follow Matthew’s request to shorten the “not sustainable” point while retaining Amr's added counter-arguments. It now reads: DT members from the Commercial Stakeholders Group said Council should not decide non-policy matters, since ICANN Bylaws say Council is “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO”. This implies that Council is limited to policy and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters. On the other hand, some DT members noted that there is no provision in the Bylaws for any group, be it Council or the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to assume these new powers and that there is currently no procedure for GNSO Stakeholder Groups to handle these matters. For those of you counting words and looking for balance, that paragraph is now 49 words for each point of view! So, are we good to go??? Please reply by 12 UTC on Wednesday 12-Oct. —Steve From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:36 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> 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] Correction 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. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:21 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 Amr — Good point about Consensus level, and I thought a lot about that. GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link), 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). 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). _______________________________________________ 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
Hi, Thanks for this Steve. Speaking for myself, I’m quite happy with this report. It’s not exactly how I would have imagined it would turn out, but it’s more than close enough. I'm obviously also very happy with the recommendations the DT ended up making. I will share this with the NCSG. There were indications on Council that this motion would be deferred to Hyderabad to give the GNSO’s SGs and Cs time to review it prior to a Council vote, but I plan on advising the NCSG to adopt the report and recommendations whenever the vote takes place. Thanks again, Steve, as well as all the DT members for the effort and diligence in getting this done in such a short timeframe. Amr
On Oct 12, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:
Okay, we’re at 12 UTC so here’s a final version reflecting edits requested by Darcy and supported by Amr and Matt.
Darcy — the previous draft did say that all of the 4 recommendations are by consensus:
"Nonetheless, all DT members contributed to consensus recommendations for voting thresholds on the assumption that GNSO Council would approve nominations and actions created under the new ICANN Bylaws". But I made that clearer by adding quotes, caps, and bold for “Consensus” in the attached on page 1 and below: Three DT members (IPC, ISPCP, and BC) do not support Council exercising any of the new powers by voting within the present House-bound structure. The recommendation that Council would speak for GNSO therefore has “Strong support but significant opposition”. Nonetheless, all DT members contributed to “Consensus” recommendations for voting thresholds on the assumption that GNSO Council would approve nominations and actions created under the new ICANN Bylaws.
In the big matrix doc, I copied the above text to page 1 so the level of consensus is clear.
I made Darcy’s edits to page 4 as requested below, and changed “some DT members” to “Most DT members”:
DT members from the Commercial Stakeholders Group said Council should not decide non-policy matters, since ICANN Bylaws say Council is “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO” and it is their position that this limits Council to policy, and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters. On the other hand, most DT members noted that there is no provision in the Bylaws for any group, be it Council or the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to assume these new powers and that there is currently no procedure for GNSO Stakeholder Groups to handle these matters.
With that, I believe staff can forward these docs to Council today, like we promised when we asked for the 2 week extension.
Thanks again to everyone for your efforts.
From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 6:38 AM To: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Another LAST CALL on revised DT report
Hi,
Thanks for this Darcy. On the consensus levels my understanding is, and Steve can correct me if I am mistaken, is that the distinction between recommendation 1 and the others is that the BC voted against one, and for the others.
On the suggested changes to the text, I personally like them, and believe they help to more effectively explain the differing opinions on the DT.
Thanks again.
Amr
On Oct 12, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com> wrote: A few thoughts I have, and I’m sorry I didn’t have the opportunity to share them earlier during everyone else’s commentary.
On page 1, we call out “Strong support but significant opposition” about Council speaking for the GNSO, but we don’t do the same for the rest of the recommendations. I second Amr’s suggestion that we call out consensus level for each of our four recommendations.
Regarding item 2 from below, I recommend a bit of a language change shown in red below to more accurately reflect that this is an opinion of certain DT members:
“DT members from the Commercial Stakeholders Group said Council should not decide non-policy matters, since ICANN Bylaws say Council is “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO,” and it is their position that this language This implies that Council is limited to policy and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters. On the other hand, some DT members noted that there is no provision in the Bylaws for any group, be it Council or the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to assume these new powers and that there is currently no procedure for GNSO Stakeholder Groups to handle these matters.”
Regarding the yellow highlighting above, I remember our discussions on this a bit differently. I may be confusing it with another discussion since the “some DT members” language doesn’t indicate which of us we’re discussing, but I think many DT members said that the “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO” language doesn’t prohibit Council from working on non-policy matters.
Do we have any feedback from David Maher to these various drafts/emails?
Thanks, Darcy
From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 4:01 PM To: matthew shears <mshears@cdt.org>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Another LAST CALL on revised DT report
In the interest of getting this done, I offer the attached revised report, with these changes:
1. Made the page 1 edit proposed by Wolf-Ulrich in response to Amr, and added level of consensus, as requested by Amr. It now reads:
Note: Three DT members (IPC, ISPCP, and BC) do not support Council exercising any of the new powers by voting within the present House-bound structure. The recommendation that Council would speak for GNSO therefore has “Strong support but significant opposition”. Nonetheless, all DT members contributed to consensus recommendations for voting thresholds on the assumption that GNSO Council would approve nominations and actions created under the new ICANN Bylaws.
2. On page 4 we follow Matthew’s request to shorten the “not sustainable” point while retaining Amr's added counter-arguments. It now reads:
DT members from the Commercial Stakeholders Group said Council should not decide non-policy matters, since ICANN Bylaws say Council is “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO”. This implies that Council is limited to policy and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters. On the other hand, some DT members noted that there is no provision in the Bylaws for any group, be it Council or the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to assume these new powers and that there is currently no procedure for GNSO Stakeholder Groups to handle these matters.
For those of you counting words and looking for balance, that paragraph is now 49 words for each point of view!
So, are we good to go??? Please reply by 12 UTC on Wednesday 12-Oct.
—Steve
From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:36 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Correction
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.
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:21 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval
Amr —
Good point about Consensus level, and I thought a lot about that. GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link), 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). 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).
_______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt
<GNSO Bylaws DT report [Final 12-Oct].docx><GNSO Bylaws DT report [Final 12-Oct].pdf><Bylaws & GNSO Procedures Map [FINAL 12-Oct].pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt
Thanks Steve as well and all team participants. Regarding Amr's indication that the council may not vote on the motion tomorrow: is there any time pressure on council to take a decision tomorrow? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Amr Elsadr Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 4:14 PM To: Steve DelBianco Cc: gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Another LAST CALL on revised DT report Hi, Thanks for this Steve. Speaking for myself, I’m quite happy with this report. It’s not exactly how I would have imagined it would turn out, but it’s more than close enough. I'm obviously also very happy with the recommendations the DT ended up making. I will share this with the NCSG. There were indications on Council that this motion would be deferred to Hyderabad to give the GNSO’s SGs and Cs time to review it prior to a Council vote, but I plan on advising the NCSG to adopt the report and recommendations whenever the vote takes place. Thanks again, Steve, as well as all the DT members for the effort and diligence in getting this done in such a short timeframe. Amr
On Oct 12, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:
Okay, we’re at 12 UTC so here’s a final version reflecting edits requested by Darcy and supported by Amr and Matt.
Darcy — the previous draft did say that all of the 4 recommendations are by consensus:
"Nonetheless, all DT members contributed to consensus recommendations for voting thresholds on the assumption that GNSO Council would approve nominations and actions created under the new ICANN Bylaws". But I made that clearer by adding quotes, caps, and bold for “Consensus” in the attached on page 1 and below: Three DT members (IPC, ISPCP, and BC) do not support Council exercising any of the new powers by voting within the present House-bound structure. The recommendation that Council would speak for GNSO therefore has “Strong support but significant opposition”. Nonetheless, all DT members contributed to “Consensus” recommendations for voting thresholds on the assumption that GNSO Council would approve nominations and actions created under the new ICANN Bylaws.
In the big matrix doc, I copied the above text to page 1 so the level of consensus is clear.
I made Darcy’s edits to page 4 as requested below, and changed “some DT members” to “Most DT members”:
DT members from the Commercial Stakeholders Group said Council should not decide non-policy matters, since ICANN Bylaws say Council is “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO” and it is their position that this limits Council to policy, and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters. On the other hand, most DT members noted that there is no provision in the Bylaws for any group, be it Council or the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to assume these new powers and that there is currently no procedure for GNSO Stakeholder Groups to handle these matters.
With that, I believe staff can forward these docs to Council today, like we promised when we asked for the 2 week extension.
Thanks again to everyone for your efforts.
From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 6:38 AM To: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com> Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Another LAST CALL on revised DT report
Hi,
Thanks for this Darcy. On the consensus levels my understanding is, and Steve can correct me if I am mistaken, is that the distinction between recommendation 1 and the others is that the BC voted against one, and for the others.
On the suggested changes to the text, I personally like them, and believe they help to more effectively explain the differing opinions on the DT.
Thanks again.
Amr
On Oct 12, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com> wrote: A few thoughts I have, and I’m sorry I didn’t have the opportunity to share them earlier during everyone else’s commentary.
On page 1, we call out “Strong support but significant opposition” about Council speaking for the GNSO, but we don’t do the same for the rest of the recommendations. I second Amr’s suggestion that we call out consensus level for each of our four recommendations.
Regarding item 2 from below, I recommend a bit of a language change shown in red below to more accurately reflect that this is an opinion of certain DT members:
“DT members from the Commercial Stakeholders Group said Council should not decide non-policy matters, since ICANN Bylaws say Council is “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO,” and it is their position that this language This implies that Council is limited to policy and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters. On the other hand, some DT members noted that there is no provision in the Bylaws for any group, be it Council or the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to assume these new powers and that there is currently no procedure for GNSO Stakeholder Groups to handle these matters.”
Regarding the yellow highlighting above, I remember our discussions on this a bit differently. I may be confusing it with another discussion since the “some DT members” language doesn’t indicate which of us we’re discussing, but I think many DT members said that the “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO” language doesn’t prohibit Council from working on non-policy matters.
Do we have any feedback from David Maher to these various drafts/emails?
Thanks, Darcy
From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 4:01 PM To: matthew shears <mshears@cdt.org>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Another LAST CALL on revised DT report
In the interest of getting this done, I offer the attached revised report, with these changes:
1. Made the page 1 edit proposed by Wolf-Ulrich in response to Amr, and added level of consensus, as requested by Amr. It now reads:
Note: Three DT members (IPC, ISPCP, and BC) do not support Council exercising any of the new powers by voting within the present House-bound structure. The recommendation that Council would speak for GNSO therefore has “Strong support but significant opposition”. Nonetheless, all DT members contributed to consensus recommendations for voting thresholds on the assumption that GNSO Council would approve nominations and actions created under the new ICANN Bylaws.
2. On page 4 we follow Matthew’s request to shorten the “not sustainable” point while retaining Amr's added counter-arguments. It now reads:
DT members from the Commercial Stakeholders Group said Council should not decide non-policy matters, since ICANN Bylaws say Council is “responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO”. This implies that Council is limited to policy and that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies should handle other matters. On the other hand, some DT members noted that there is no provision in the Bylaws for any group, be it Council or the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, to assume these new powers and that there is currently no procedure for GNSO Stakeholder Groups to handle these matters.
For those of you counting words and looking for balance, that paragraph is now 49 words for each point of view!
So, are we good to go??? Please reply by 12 UTC on Wednesday 12-Oct.
—Steve
From: <gnso-bylaws-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:36 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org>, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Correction
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.
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:21 PM To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Cc: "gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org" <gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] LAST CALL: GNSO Bylaws DT report and matrix -- final version for DT approval
Amr —
Good point about Consensus level, and I thought a lot about that. GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link), 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). 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).
_______________________________________________ Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list Gnso-bylaws-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt
<GNSO Bylaws DT report [Final 12-Oct].docx><GNSO Bylaws DT report [Final 12-Oct].pdf><Bylaws & GNSO Procedures Map [FINAL 12-Oct].pdf>_______________________________________________ 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
participants (5)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Darcy Southwell -
matthew shears -
Steve DelBianco -
WUKnoben