Excellent - thanks Amr
On 13/10/2016 15:07, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The motion to adopt the DT’s report and recommendations was deferred to the Council meeting in Hyderabad a little over an hour ago, so we should have enough time to come up with a statement of our own. We can also ask the registries and the registrars if they would like to join us in drafting/submitting it, if we choose to.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Oct 13, 2016, at 5:31 PM, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you, Amr.
>>
>> I agree that we did well and we got the recommendations that are to the benefit of NCSG. One recommendation being that the council is the GNSO body that takes part in the Empowered Community. I hope this recommendation does not face problems later.
>>
>> But we went through a difficult process of drafting which I think taught us a couple of good lessons: We should not allow a representative of one stakeholder group become the sole chair of the group, in charge of drafting the document. The report became a minority statement ( Ed did a great word count analysis that proved it was biased) and we had to insist on adoption of our changes to the doc (I would like to thank Matt and you for many good edits to the doc). I also think that we should not make too much compromise. Of course we need to collaborate but when we see there is not much compromise on the other side, we should insist on our position as much as possible (not until it breaks, just enough) especially when we are aligned with a majority position! At the moment I am thinking we should draft a "Majority Statement" objecting to how the report was drafted and how biased it was. :)
>>
>> I hope everyone at NCSG is happy with the recommendations. I think they are very good and it's a big win for us if implemented. And I think in general it's good for GNSO too.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13 October 2016 at 11:57, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 12, 2016, at 7:18 PM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I’m forwarding the final report and recommendations of the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team (DT), which are attached to this email. This drafting team was created by a Council resolution during the Council meeting on June 30th in Helsinki (https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-30jun16-en.htm), and was tasked with developing recommendations to implement the GNSO’s new roles and obligations under the ICANN bylaws, which were revised as a result of the recommendations coming out of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN’s Accountability (CCWG-ACCT). The DT came up with recommendations that should lead to amendments in the GNSO’s operating procedures.
>>>
>>> A summary of the recommendations can be found beginning on the first page of the DT’s final report, but a more detailed version of the recommendations can be reviewed in a separate document (also attached to this email), which tabulates the relevant new bylaws matching each one of them to new rights/obligations of the GNSO, the need for new operating procedures, as well as the DT recommendation relevant to each of the respective bylaws.
>>>
>>> The DT’s final report itself, apart from a summary of the recommendations, describes the consensus levels among the DT members for each of the recommendations, as well as a summary of the discussion that the DT members engaged in in order to come up with the recommendations.
>>>
>>> The NCSG had three members appointed to this DT; Farzaneh Badii, Matthew Shears and myself. We also had Edward Morris working with us on the DT having been appointed to it by the Non-Contracted Parties House (NCPH) NomCom Appointee (NCA). As far as I am concerned, it was a great team. We worked well together, and got the recommendations we wanted in having the GNSO Council making decisions on behalf of the GNSO as a decisional participant of the Empowered Community (EC). We also pretty much got all the voting thresholds we wanted on Council, and I would be happy to answers any questions on those, as I am sure Farzi, Matt and Ed would be as well.
>>>
>>> Most noteworthy among the recommendations is the fact that inspection rights will become available to individual GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, with no action being required by the GNSO Council at all. This is a huge win for us, and full credit needs to go to the NCSG members who worked on getting us these rights while working tirelessly on the CCWG-ACCT.
>>>
>>> There is already a placeholder motion that was submitted for the GNSO Council to adopt the report and recommendations of the DT, but I expect this motion to be deferred. The DT only sent its report to the Council today, and the Council’s next conference call will take place tomorrow. When the time comes, I advise our Councillors to vote in favor of adopting the DT’s report and recommendations. And like I said above, I’d be happy to answer any questions on this.
>>>
>>> Would be great to also hear from Farzi, Matt and Ed on this topic. Having been involved in the CCWG-ACCT, they’ve been working on this far longer than I have.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>
>>>> From: Steve DelBianco <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Reports from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team
>>>> Date: October 12, 2016 at 3:56:23 PM GMT+3
>>>> To: Julie Hedlund <[log in to unmask]>, Marika Konings <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Cc: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>
>>>> [ICANN Staff — please send this to GNSO Councilors]
>>>>
>>>> Dear GNSO Councilors,
>>>>
>>>> Please see the attached Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team Report and implementation plan, plus the cover note below from Steve DelBianco, Drafting Team Chair.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>>>>
>>>> Note from Steve DelBianco:
>>>>
>>>> Dear GNSO Councilors,
>>>>
>>>> As you may recall, the Bylaws Drafting Team (DT) was created to provide the GNSO Council with a draft implementation plan for any necessary updates to the GNSO Operating Procedures, or possibly the Bylaws as they relate to the GNSO, arising as a result of the revised ICANN Bylaws. The Council requested that this DT submit the proposed implementation plan by 30 September (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160630-2[gnso.icann.org] for the full Council resolution).
>>>>
>>>> At the GNSO Council meeting on 29 September, I requested an additional two weeks to complete the report due to the complexity of the task as well as the short time frame. Thank you for allowing the DT the additional two weeks to complete this very important task.
>>>>
>>>> Please see the attached final report and implementation plan from the DT for GNSO Council consideration on at its meeting on 13 October. As noted previously, this implementation plan for the Council is not intended to include specific language for new or amended rules and procedures. Drafting of these new or amended processes will therefore likely begin only after approval of the implementation plan. The understanding is that the initial task of the DT was to identify and agree on how GNSO should handle new obligations and rights arising from the revised ICANN Bylaws.
>>>>
>>>> I will be available during the GNSO Council call on the 13th to address any questions you may have concerning this implementation plan.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Steve DelBianco
>>>>
>>> <GNSO Bylaws DT report [Final 12-Oct].docx>
>>> <GNSO Bylaws DT report [Final 12-Oct].pdf>
>>> <Bylaws & GNSO Procedures Map [FINAL 12-Oct].docx>
>>> <Bylaws & GNSO Procedures Map [FINAL 12-Oct].pdf>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gnso-bylaws-dt mailing list
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Farzaneh
--
--------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987
|
