Mime-Version: |
1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=windows-1252 |
Date: |
Tue, 31 May 2011 17:25:49 -0700 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
Sender: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 31 May 2011, at 17:06, Avri Doria wrote:
> Note: the unanimity of the PDP WG had to do with the report being an accurate representation of the discussion and the compromise struck by the participants.
>
> It did not mean we all agreed on everything. But we did play nicely together.
>
> ------------
>
>
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-31may11-en.htm
Hi,
I am planing a comment on an issue I missed during the reviews - though I do not think I would have prevailed in any case so would have ended up submitting a minority opinion.
The issue has to do with recommendations 15 and 37 that both state:
> 15 ... it proposed to add language to codify the current practice that any voting[1] Council members may request the deferral of the consideration of an initiation of a PDP for one Council meeting
>
> [1] The term “voting Council Member” is intentionally used by the PDP-WT to refer to only those persons serving on the GNSO Council that have a vote as opposed to liaisons and others that do not.
>
> 37 ... . In addition, the PDP-WT recommends adding language to codify the current practice that any voting Council member can request the deferral of the consideration of a final report for one Council meeting.
I have two problems with this formulation that I will be writing up:
1- The tradition had been just that a motion could be deferred based on the SG/C needing more time to consider the motion, though of course it was usually one council members who suggested the delay. it is now being codified as any reason an individual g-council member might have for delay. So I question if this is a formal change they want to make.
2 - Assuming the answer to 1 is yes, we should not continue the practice of denigrating the role of the Noncom appointees (NCA) but making them second class g-council members. This excludes one member of the g-counci, the houseless NCA who can make motions like any other g-council member. Essentially this is a special motion that does nopt need a vote and the houseless NCA should not be excluded.
---
On a separate note, I recommend people give this a detailed reading. We will have to live with this process for a while.
a.
|
|
|