While I'm at it, Liz William ("ICANN staffer") a while ago reminded
the TF of the following section of ICANN bylaws, requesting the
constituencies to address the para (iv). My tentative response
forwarded below, since there was no time left for consultations; you
may however consider for future statement.
Excerpts from the bylaws:
d. Collection of Information.
1. Constituency Statements. The Representatives will each be
responsible for soliciting the position of their constituencies, at a
minimum, and other comments as each Representative deems appropriate,
regarding the issue under consideration. This position and other
comments, as applicable, should be submitted in a formal statement to
the task force chair (each, a "Constituency Statement") within
thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. Every
Constituency Statement shall include at least the following:
(i) If a Supermajority Vote was reached, a clear statement of the
constituency's position on the issue;
(ii) If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of
all positions espoused by constituency members;
(iii) A clear statement of how the constituency arrived at its
position(s). Specifically, the statement should detail specific
constituency meetings, teleconferences, or other means of
deliberating an issue, and a list of all members who participated or
otherwise submitted their views;
(iv) An analysis of how the issue would affect the constituency,
including any financial impact on the constituency; and
(v) An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary
to implement the policy.
--- Mawaki Chango <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 22:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mawaki Chango <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] GNSO PDP Feb 06: Proposed Work Plan
> To: PDPfeb06 <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Liz,
>
> Me again... to correct an oversight. About the "impact on
> onstituency
> analysis" - this was in fact the point I wanted to make on the last
> call, but there was a problem with the line. As I understand the
> related bylaws sections, d.1.iv and e.3, it's about anlyzing "how
> the
> issue would affect the constituency." Allow me to provide you with
> my
> view, since we are running out of time.
>
> Though a few individual NCUC members may have business in the realm
> of ICANN activities, at one level or another, this seems far to be
> a
> largely shared feature of our members, and thus, could not define
> how
> the constituency as a whole would be affected by the outcome of the
> issue at hand. Rather our deliberations are often articulated
> around
> what we perceive to be in the public interest and for the respect
> and/or the improvement of individuals' rights (that's what I've
> seen
> and understood so far). This appears in the rationale or reasoning
> in
> our statement, since we have to, and do justify or explain our
> position in such statements.
>
> Therefore, we may not have much to add in a separate note or
> section,
> to address this question - unless we conduct a survey, or a review
> (of the kind of the one the LSE's just done of the GNSO) to find
> out
> about how the business of each individual member organization would
> be impacted by the issue, which, I believe, would be way much
> heavier
> than what is being requested here.
>
> So, if you accept this response, I state that to the best of my
> knowledge, NCUC has no further input to submit for inclusion in the
> next iteration of the TF Preliminary report.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Mawaki
>
>
> --- Liz Williams <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Colleagues
> >
> > I have set out below my understanding of where the group had
> > agreement from yesterday's call. During the call, no motions
> were
> >
> > agreed and the minutes will only reflect tentative discussions.
> >
> > Work plan
> >
> > 16 August 2006: Final edits to be sent on Preliminary Taskforce
>
> > Report. Please include "impact on constituency analysis" and
> > please
> > provide specific text change suggestions.
> >
> > 16 August 2006: Final deadline for submission of suggestions for
>
> > expert materials
> >
> > 23 August 2006: Distribution of expert materials for
> consideration
> >
> > by the TF
> >
> > 21 September 2006: Proposed date for next teleconference -
> agenda
> >
> > will be sent 7 days prior to the call. Call designed to discuss
>
> > expert materials and impact on drafting of Preliminary Taskforce
>
> > Report. Note that this is after the already scheduled Amsterdam
>
> > meetings and after the regular GNSO Council call on 14 September.
> >
> > 28 September 2006: Release completed Preliminary Taskforce
> Report
> >
> > and begin 20 day public comment period
> >
> > 10 October 2006: Public comment period closes
> >
> > 20 October 2006: Release of Final Report to GNSO Council --
> please
> >
> > note section 10 of PDP guidelines which refers to Council
> > deliberation and, if the Council chooses, hearing of expert
> > advisors
> >
> > 30 October 2006: GNSO Council meets to discuss Final Report.
> > Incorporation of any final commentary.
> >
> > 3 November 2006: Release of Board Report.
> >
> > Note that these dates reflect the PDP guidelines as they stand.
> >
> > I would appreciate a formal motion being passed to agree this
> > schedule. This can be done by email. Note section 11 of the
> > current
> > PDP guidelines that require minuting of all decisions for
> > incorporation into the Board Report.
> >
> > In addition, I would also appreciate a motion that would approve
> > the
> > minutes of the previous call -- please consult those minutes if
> you
> >
> > were present at the meeting so that you can vote to accept those
>
> > minutes before our next teleconference.
> >
> > Of course, any questions or comments, let me know.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > .....................................................
> >
> > Liz Williams
> > Senior Policy Counselor
> > ICANN - Brussels
> > +32 2 234 7874 tel
> > +32 2 234 7848 fax
> > +32 497 07 4243 mob
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
|
