Issues to do with the inclusion of the NCA have been significantly improved in this draft, and I thank our negotiating team for that.

I find section 4 to be confusing. It mixes together elements of the new procedure (which is that there must be a consensus candidate of both houses) and the old (which is that councillors vote).

If there is consensus, we do not not really need an election as such, and the text about ‘representing at least 60% of house votes’ is confusing - in the procedure as described, there are only two outcomes, less than 50% or over 92% of house votes - but what a house vote is is never really explained, but the over 60% part I assume references per councillor voting? And the procedure for failure to get 100% consensus appears to simply be go back to the start.

The term leadership is also vague. In the previous procedure, this was a vote of councillors, clearly. In this document, this has been replaced with leadership, which I find very vague - who, exactly, is leadership? Councillors? Councillors plus PC? Or are EC included? What would we do if, for example, we had a situation where all councillors could agree on a candidate but some EC members objected? These are primarily internal to NCSG questions that need not be in this document - but if we go with this document, we will have to document our internal decision making process more, I think.

And I repeat my previous objection that this procedure takes the idea of NCSG acting as a single consensus block, which we only initially considered as a tactical negotiating tactic, and institutionalises it. I understand that we can do nothing to change the internal dynamics of the CSG, but should we change ours to suit them?
This document has huge changes to the internal operation of NCSG, and to the operation of the GNSO as a whole, and I think deserves further discussion. I also don’t think we should allow the CSG leadership to write their current internal dynamics into the rules, though of course we have to accept them as a de facto reality.

That said, I think its perfectly fine as an agreement between the two constituencies as a basis for negotiations, and would happily accept it on that basis. I’m just very very uncomfortable with it as a complete replacement for the previous rules. Perhaps we can simply add on to the end of this procedure that if a consensus candidate cannot be identified, revert to the previous rules?


David

> On 17 Jun 2018, at 7:19 am, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> <ICANN 61.revised. Board seat 14[1][1].docx_WUKedit - AF edits.docx>