[] The New GNSO Policy Development Process Presented for Approval

[Avri Doria]

On 31 May 2011, at 17:06, Avri Doria wrote:

> Note: the unanimity of the PDP WG had to do with the report being an accurate representation of the discussion and the compromise struck by the participants.  
> 
> It did not mean we all agreed on everything.  But we did play nicely together.
> 
> ------------
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-31may11-en.htm

Hi,


I am planing a comment on an issue I missed during the reviews - though I do not think I would have prevailed in any case so would have ended up submitting a minority opinion.  

The issue has to do with recommendations 15 and 37 that both state:

> 15 ... it proposed to add language to codify the current practice that any voting[1] Council members may request the deferral of the consideration of an initiation of a PDP for one Council meeting
> 
> [1] The term “voting Council Member” is intentionally used by the PDP-WT to refer to only those persons serving on the GNSO Council that have a vote as opposed to liaisons and others that do not.
> 
> 37 ... . In addition, the PDP-WT recommends adding language to codify the current practice that any voting Council member can request the deferral of the consideration of a final report for one Council meeting.

I have two problems with this formulation that I will be writing up:

1- The tradition had been just that a motion could be deferred based on the SG/C needing more time to consider the motion, though of course it was usually one council members who suggested the delay.  it is now being codified as any reason an individual g-council member might have for delay.  So I question if this is a formal change they want to make.

2 - Assuming the answer to 1 is yes, we should not continue the practice of denigrating the role of the Noncom appointees (NCA) but making them second class g-council members.   This excludes one member of the g-counci, the houseless NCA who can make motions like any other g-council member.  Essentially this is a special motion that does nopt need a vote and the houseless NCA should not be excluded.


---

On a separate note, I recommend people give this a detailed reading.  We will have to live with this process for a while.

a.