[PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi Wendy,

Yes?, it is true that this is a possibility. Consensus policies require a high threshold of support on the GNSO council, but that is largely limited to the imposition of new contractual obligations on contracted parties.

However, intra house division in the NCPH doesn?t necessarily mean we can?t get a motion passed. NCSG along with the CPH and the NomCom Appointee (NCA) to the NCPH can pass a motion containing consensus policies. Additionally, on (very) rare occasions, one of the constituencies of the CSG could support such a motion. The one example I recall this happening was when the ISPC voted to adopt a motion along with the registries, registrars and NCSG back in November 2012 on the non-consensus recommendations of the IGO/INGO rights protection PDP.

The ability to block a motion in the NCPH also gives the NCSG some measure of influence to effectively cause a motion to fail assuming the NCA votes with the NCSG against a motion.

All-in-all?, I don?t think it?s a terrible setup.

Thanks.

Amr

On Jul 27, 2015, at 10:04 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:

> On 07/27/2015 03:57 PM, William Drake wrote:
>>>> I have already expressed my disconnect from the perceived problems with the 2-house structure.
>> You?ve been saying you don?t get peoples? concerns with the two house structure and I?ve not heard anyone express concerns with the two house structure, so I?m also feeling a disconnect as well.
>> 
> 
> I hate the two-house structure. It blocks us from making progress where
> we have cross-house agreement but intra-house division.
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> -- 
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613