+1
Norbert Klein
in Cambodia
On 10/13/2016 9:31 PM, farzaneh badii 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]
> <mailto:[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
> <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]
> <mailto:[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
> <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]
> <mailto:[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]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Marika Konings
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> >> Cc: "[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[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]
> <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] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-bylaws-dt>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Farzaneh
|