+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