Dear all,
As Jeff Neuman is the Observer from the
GNSO Council on this matter, I am hereby asking all to respond to the SCI list only
and not copy Jonathan on our exchanges. I am sure he has enough email coming
at him as Chair of the Council and Jeff, as the designate, can report back to
him as and when needed.
Thanks everyone.
RA
Ronald N. Andruff
From:
owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013
5:07 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff;
Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu; avri@acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org;
jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc]
New task
I
think our problem is the meshing of to systems that are not necessarily
complimentary. For this reason, I recommend that we consider getting away
from the council passing motions and re-focus the efforts on calling for
consensus.
J. Scott
j. scott evans - head of global
brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 -
jscottevans@yahoo.com
From: "Neuman,
Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>
To:
"Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu" <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>;
"avri@acm.org" <avri@acm.org>; "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org"
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>;
"jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com" <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013
1:00 PM
Subject: RE:
[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
Thanks
Mary. I understand the rules you have laid out, but not sure I understand
the rationale? What are you trying to prevent, guard against,
protect, etc.? The reason I take the opposite view is that we are a
consensus building organization. If consensus can be achieved on a policy
matter, regardless of whether it is when a measure of consensus is taken the
first time or the 2nd time, I see no reason to recognize consensus
when consensus exists.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar,
Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
From: Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu [mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013
12:17 PM
To: avri@acm.org;
gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org; jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com
Cc: Neuman, Jeff
Subject: RE:
[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
Thanks, Jonathan and Jeff. As I won't be on the SCI call this
week, my view, FWIW, is that a motion that is properly introduced, seconded and
voted on should NOT be re-introduced (whether in its original form or tweaked)
in the absence of clear evidence indicating fraud, duress or other similar
circumstance surrounding the original introduction/seconding/vote in relation
to the motion. In this regard, Councilors' ignorance of the rules (e.g. effect
of an abstention), and lack of instruction/direction from a Councilor's
particular constituency/SG, should NOT count as the type of circumstance that
ought to permit a reintroduction or re-vote on what in substance is the same
motion.
Cheers
Mary
Mary
W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director,
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF
Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>>> "Jonathan Robinson" 01/10/13 1:12 AM >>>
All,
My
understanding of the role of the SCI is to determine how improvements may be
made for the future.
When
the motion was re-submitted to the December meeting, I do not believe that
there was any procedure to guide the Council on the re-introduction of a motion
that had recently been voted on.
This
specific issue has highlighted that we may need something to guide us on this
in future. I do not believe that the SCI?s hands are tied at all.
We
have one useful example which raised concerns and now need to look at as
general solution as possible for the future in order to cover both the example
that raised the concern and other cases which may occur in future.
Thanks,
Jonathan
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu
Sent: 09 January 2013 16:58
To: avri@acm.org; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
Cc: jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com;
Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us
Subject: Re:
[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
I support Avri's points generally, and would add the following in
this specific instance:
- the initial vote was properly proposed, seconded and voted on.
- just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, the fact that Councilors were not
aware of the implications of an abstention (when, frankly, they should be as
it's in the rules plain as day) should not permit a re-introduction of something
that was properly introduced and voted on.
- In this case I don't know if the specific constituency impacted had given
instructions to its Councilors as to how to vote. Even if they did not, the
fact remains that these are very clearly set out in the GNSO rules, and if a
constituency or Councilors did not know or did not make the time to
discuss/decide, that is a very poor excuse for reintroducing a motion (again,
one properly introduced, seconded and voted on).
- In an ideal world, the Council should have suspended the matter and referred
the issue of a re-introduction/reconsideration of such a motion (without
necessarily specifying the actual motion or context) to the SCI before
re-opening the vote. As it is, it seems as though the SCI's hands are somewhat
tied since the second motion did get voted on and went through - the mind
boggles at an SCI determination that this re-introduction and vote was improper
or invalid, especially in the currrent somewhat sensitive context within which
ICANN is operating.
Cheers
Mary
Mary
W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director,
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF
Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>>> Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> 01/09/13 2:01 PM
>>>
Another thought experiment.
There was a recent g-council vote where, in a rare event, the NCSG Policy
Council had decided on an unanimous vote on an issue. But during the vote, some
voters got confused and voted against.
Would it have been appropriate for us to demand a re-vote?
Had one of us been g-council Chair, would it have ben right for us to just
reschedule the vote without even getting the g-councl to discuss and perhaps
even vote on the notion of reconsidering the vote?
A general question, anytime from now on, when a SG or Constituency beleive that
its voters went against the will of the SG/C should they be able to have a vote
rescheduled at the next meeting?
avri
On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:54, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> Even Robert's Rules of Order has rules on when and how a motion can be
reconsidered or rescinded (10.5). The Board of ICANN has rules on
reconsideration in the ByLaws.
>
> One specific requirement for reconsideration under Roberts is that one of
those on the prevailing side ask for the reconsideration. In this case it was
the Chair who had been on the losing side.
>
> We need rules on when it is done and on how it should be done.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 9 Jan 2013, at 00:30, J. Scott Evans wrote:
>
>> I tend to agree,
>>
>> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrlaw.com>;
>> To: 'Avri Doria' <avri@acm.org>; Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org>;
>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com>;
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
>> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:27:47 AM
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>> What I am struggling with procedurally is a basic "Robert's
Rules" type inquiry. Namely: - I don't know of anything procedurally that
would permit a motion that is moved and seconded from being voted on, no matter
how obnoxious anyone finds the motion to be. I guess this is what we are going
to discuss tomorrow.
>
> the issue was voting again after it had already been defeated.
>
>>
>> I would like to ask whether there are specific provisions in the GNSO
Operating Procedures regarding introduction of motions that staff can provide
prior to our call.
>
> It is all in the g-counci Procedures.
> And is says nothing on reconsideration or rescinding of decisions already
made.
>
>
>>
>> Thank you
>> Anne
>>
>>
>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
>> Of Counsel
>> Lewis and
>>
>> Tel (520) 629-4428 * Fax (520) 879-4725
>> AAikman@LRLaw.com * www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>> This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
>> intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
>> agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
>> hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
>> copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication
>> was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the
original message.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:16 PM
>> To: Jeff Neuman; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I guess I do not support that.
>>
>> I think a motion should only be voted on once. and that to bring it
back, something must have changed or a reasonable amount of time should have
past.
>>
>> And no we use votes to count the up to the thresholds defined for
motions to pass. We may euphemistically use the word consensus, but it has
NOTHING to do with consensus. If anything the consensus is in the work of the
WGs and not in the votes of the management team, i.e. g-council.
>>
>> I believe that what happened in that meeting is something that should
never be allowed to happen again. And if we need rules to keep the chair from
doing things like that, something I admit never entered my imagination of
things that could go wrong, then we need new rules.
>>
>> A thought experiment: Just imagine the uproar in the council if an
NCUC based g-council chair had dared to some like this when the vote did not go
her way.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 21:24, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Avri,
>>>
>>> Yes, I know we use voting to measure consensus. But in the end,
the spirit is to achieve consensus on policy items. The fact that it took two
votes to do so should not prejudice the results. Again, if there was some
evidence of wrong doing, fraud etc., that would be one thing. But that did not
happen.
>>>
>>> I support the ability to re-vote on any item unless there is
evidence of misconduct, harassment, fraud, etc.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>>>
>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@ella.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 08:29 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>> To: Neuman, Jeff
>>> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org;
Jonathan Robinson
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Sorry, that may be what the reviews intended at one point, but
that is not what the current regulations say. Due to the agreement between the
SG at the time, a very strict voting regime was adopted and approved by the
Board for the g-council. G-council has such a complicated voting structure that
the Secretariat has a special tool to help them figure out when a motion has
passed or not.
>>>
>>> To now claim that g-council is a consensus body does not match the
reality of the situation.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 19:37, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I will restate what I said on the Council call. We are not
supposed to as a group focus on voting. We are supposed to come to
"consensus" on items. If there is a "consensus" at any time
of the Council on any given policy (provided that the processes were followed
by the working group making the recommendation), then that is what should
govern. The last evolution and reform of icann report by the London School of
Economics as supported by the Board Governance Committee emphasized this over
and over again. We are not supposed to be a voting body, so lets focus back on
consensus.
>>>>
>>>> All of the comments I have seen from those that did not like
the result in the last council meeting have not addressed the fact that
ultimately there was a "consensus" on the issue. The fact that there
had to be a second measurement of consensus on the item to me seems irrelevant
and unnecessarily procedural. There was no abuse of process. There was no abuse
within the working group making the recommendation. There is not evidence that
there were improper conflicts, etc. Absent any showing of abuse, harassment,
fraud, illegality, or willful negligence, I believe having a second measurement
of consensus is not an issue.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>>>>
>>>> Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@ella.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>>> To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
>>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Neuman, Jeff
>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] New task
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 17:16, Ron Andruff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Assuming that the ultimate desired outcome was for
Councillors to vote as they were permitted to (and possibly directed to by
their group), two remedies were possible.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I take real issue with this in that this can only be the case
when it is accordance with adherence to all rules of neutrality, transparency
and accountability.
>>>>
>>>> Once a vote is given, it is taken and clues from anyone on how
to make the vote work out better are not, in my view or the view of my
stakeholder group, legitimate. It is not for voter to decide that they should
be able vote they way they meant to when they voted another way. If it was,
those poor old jewish voters on finding out the ballot in
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------
>> For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying
to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
>> In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise
you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not
intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the
purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer
>>
>