Aspirational Statements

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Pedro,

thanks for the question,
I think we should refer to what GNSO Operating procedure and ICANN bylaws
say:
Bylaws simply describe council role as:
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11

> (d) The GNSO Council is responsible for managing the policy development
> process of the GNSO. It shall adopt such procedures (the "*GNSO Operating
> Procedures*") as it sees fit to carry out that responsibility, provided
> that such procedures are approved by a majority vote of each House


>From PDP manual regarding deliberation on final recommendations ,
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedures-15mar23-en.pdf


The GNSO Council is expected to vote on the recommendations contained in
> the Final Report. Approval of the PDP recommendations contained in the
> Final Report requires an affirmative vote meeting the thresholds set forth
> at Article 11, Section 3(i) viii – x.

In the event that the Final Report includes recommendations that did not
> achieve the consensus within the PDP Team, the GNSO Council should
> deliberate on whether to adopt them or remand the recommendations for
> further analysis and work. Although the GNSO Council may adopt all or any
> portion of the recommendations contained in the Final Report, it is
> recommended that the GNSO Council take into account whether the PDP Team
> has indicated that any recommendations contained in the Final Report are
> interdependent. The GNSO Council is strongly discouraged from itemizing
> recommendations that the PDP Team has identified interdependent or
> modifying recommendations wherever possible. In the event the GNSO Council
> expresses concerns or proposes changes to the PDP recommendations, it may
> be more appropriate to pass these concerns or recommendations for changes
> back to the respective PDP Team for input and follow-up.
>

I read that if there is concern about recommendations, the council won't
work on amending them but send them back to the working group for further
work. There is nothing explicit about reasons for non-adoption, but the
whole process is built upon the fact the council is manager of process and
follows the whole lifecycle. It is done through its liaison to the working
group, regular updates from chair(s) and any escalation (council also added
more  focus on project management with regard to timelines and work plans).
The end goal is to avoid the situation of a non-consensus product. The case
indicated above is about recommendations not achieving consensus and how to
deal with them.

I am not sure what we can mean by the merit of working group conclusions ,
is it about the substance?  The expectation is to review the deliverable
based on what the council asked the working group to do in the charter and
the questions put there. So I don't think that is about the content of the
recommendations as much as checking if the working group followed the
charter, scope and worked to respond to the questions.
Problems can arise from the scoping already. That is why my main point is
that trying to vote against recommendations is a failure and everything
should be done during the whole PDP process. We don't expect the council to
redo the recommendations. Of course the practice can differ and that is why
I am cautious about opening the door more, it is not because we might find
tactically appalling to vote against, we should forget others can leverage
it and more frequently weaken in the process the working group as approach
and PDP in general.

Best,

Rafik

Le dim. 2 juin 2024 à 04:59, Pedro de Perdigão Lana <
pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com> a écrit :

> Hi Rafik,
>
> I want to learn a bit more about something you mentioned, which is GNSO
> Council not getting involved in policy making and analyzing mainly
> procedural matters in their votes, since this could change my view. After
> the reform, the council does not have any role in analyzing the merit of WP
> conclusions?
>
> Cordially,
>
> *Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
> Advogado - OAB/PR 90.600 <https://www.nic.br/>,  Pesquisador (GEDAI/UFPR
> <https://www.gedai.com.br/>)
> Doutorando em Direito (UFPR), Mestre em Direito Empresarial (UCoimbra),
> Membro da Coordenação - CC Brasil <https://br.creativecommons.net/>, ISOC
> BR <https://isoc.org.br/> e IODA <https://ioda.org.br/>
> Essa mensagem é restrita ao remetente e destinatário(s). Se recebida por
> engano, favor responder informando o erro.
>
>
> Em qui., 30 de mai. de 2024 às 21:29, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> escreveu:
>
>> Hi Stephanie,
>>
>> if I understand the statement correctly, it is about the case of PDP
>> recommendations, it is not mentioning small groups and other neo-vehicles
>> created by council and board? Those small groups are different "beasts" and
>> I personally warned against their inflation when I was in council as they
>> dilute councillors responsibilities.
>>
>> For the PDP case, we know that on several occasions some groups
>> within GNSO or pressure from outside like ACs or board where there were
>> push to revisit recommendations or not approve that. I do believe that
>> raises a lot of concern and most of the time we were not supporting such
>> things. Final report review by the GNSO council is mainly about checking if
>> the process was flawed and there are procedural matters. Since the GNSO
>> review in 2009 it was made clear that councils don't meddle or get involved
>> in policy making and we got the working group model instead. Relitigating
>> or going into substance at council level is not something we support, even
>> though it can be appalling tactically sometimes.
>>
>> For all concerns, I am seeing in previous responses, they are related to
>> what is going on in the working group or about representation. I don't
>> think believing about having the nuclear option to vote against at council
>> is really good for us (if it is there, remember it will be used by others
>> too). We want to keep the process in place and keep it fair because it
>> gives us some leverage, if not other groups have the means to influence and
>> game. So the focus should be how to fix issues at the working group level.
>> Are we properly using the mechanisms to raise concerns within the working
>> group during deliberation? Are we keeping chairs accountable?
>>
>> Anyway, I am not really against the statement per se but not something I
>> will fight for. BUT I would be cautious about thinking that voting against
>> recommendations for some reasons is something to contemplate .
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> Le ven. 31 mai 2024 à 05:30, Stephanie Perrin <
>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a écrit :
>>
>>> Thanks everyone, It looks like we have rough consensus around getting
>>> rid of this statement.  I would argue it is redundant.  I would also point
>>> out to members that we should be keeping a sharp eye out for toes testing
>>> the water these days, as we are heading for holistic review.  Powers and
>>> voting rights could be taken away in the name of efficiency and greater
>>> "forward" motion.  For the MS system to work, it must be deliberative and
>>> accountable.  That often means slow and repetitive.
>>> Cheers Stephanie Perrin
>>>
>>> On May 30, 2024, at 11:57 AM, Johan Helsingius <
>>> 00001963cc94b85a-dmarc-request at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20240602/ba0cf011/attachment.htm>