Hi,

To be clear, we made compromises on how the report described the different views within the DT. This resulted in the minority view greatly dominating the report’s narrative in its earlier versions. It was unfortunate, and we wasted a great deal of time pushing back on this, but I believe the final version of the report is far better than earlier drafts. But it was quite exhausting and frustrating at times.

Still…, it is important to note that no compromises were made on the recommendations themselves. We got all the recommendations and thresholds we wanted. And with the thoroughness of the description of the minority view in the DT report, it seemed to me like the minority statement was quite weak and redundant.

Since we have time before this comes up before Council again, it’d be great to get more input on this. That’s pretty much the reason why the motion was deferred.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Oct 13, 2016, at 6:09 PM, Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Amr, Farzaneh:
> The intransigence of the IPR constituencies has been a constant since ICANN's inception. 
> They never compromise so it's not advisable to offer them any compromises. 
> 
> --MM
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>> Of Amr Elsadr
>> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 5:57 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Reports from the GNSO Bylaws
>> Implementation Drafting Team
>> 
>> Hi again,
>> 
>> Steve Metalitz of the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) circulated a
>> minority statement to the Bylaws DT list that he asked to be forwarded to
>> the GNSO Council on behalf of the three Commercial Stakeholder Group
>> (CSG) constituencies. I’ve attached it to this email. It concerns the DT’s
>> majority view to grant Council the role of acting on behalf the GNSO as a
>> decisional participant in the EC.
>> 
>> Personally, I don’t find anything in the minority statement that adds to the
>> arguments presented on behalf of the minority group within the DT that
>> wasn’t already included in the DT’s final report. Speaking for myself, I believe
>> the CSG constituencies have been rather unhelpful on this topic while
>> working on the DT. Instead of focusing on the mandate of the DT, they took
>> the opportunity to raise points that are likely more relevant to their ongoing
>> desire to restructure the GNSO, and do away with the bicameral House
>> structure it uses. I also believe the DT, over the past seven weeks, has
>> wasted precious time negotiating edits to the report in order to prevent
>> overrepresentation of the minority view compared to the overall DT
>> consensus. This was, at times, frustrating, but I’m not unhappy with the final
>> result.
>> 
>> The DT’s report, recommendations and minority statement will be discussed
>> during today’s Council call. There is a placeholder motion to adopt the DT’s
>> work, but given the timing of the DT’s conclusion of its work, I believe this
>> motion should and will be deferred.
>> 
>> If you’d like to listen in on the Council call, you should be able to do so using a
>> live audio stream here: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u. It
>> begins in about an hour at UTC 12:00.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>