[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Revised Motion on Drafting Team/Empowerment

[Marilia Maciel]

Hi all, we just discussed the topic in the council meeting.

Paul McGrady did not consider our amendment a friendly amendment. The
consensus proposal now on the table says:
a) that the drafting group should reflect the composition of the council.
McGrady spoke about reflecting the council at constituency level, but I did
not see it captured on screen;
b) The motion now mentions that the drafting group should decide by
consensus;
c) The output of the drafting group needs to be approved by supermajority
at the council.

Since we had a clear position about it coming from the PC meeting, I am
running this through you to make sure that everyone has the chance to voice
concerns. The vote on this motion will take place tomorrow.

Thanks
Marilia

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Thank you, Marilia, this is a VERY important amendment to make.  We need
> parity in that group among the SGs.
>
> Good luck in Helsinki on this!!
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
> On Jun 29, 2016, at 2:26 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Please, see a proposal of amendment that attempts to translate the outcome
> of our discussions in the PC yesterday.
> Thanks
> Marilia
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [council] Revised Motion on Drafting Team/Empowerment
> To: Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com>
> Cc: Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com>, "council at gnso.icann.org" <
> council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I support the friendly amendments proposed by Avri with some additional
> points. From NCSG's perspective it is important that the members of the
> group are appointed by GNSO stakeholder groups. How each SG will carry out
> their internal process of selection (consulting their constituencies, for
> instance) is a matter for each SG to define, of course. We also believe
> that it is important that the group is small and manageable. We believe
> that the best way to achieve that in a fair and balanced manner is to have
> a group comprised by an equal number of volunteers per SG. Please see our
> suggested paragraph below.
>
> We hope that these suggestions can be accepted as friendly amendments and
> we look forward to further discuss these points in our informal GNSO
> session tonight.
>
> All the best wishes,
> Marilia
>
> 2. The Drafting Team shall comprise an equal number of volunteers from and
> selected by each stakeholder group of the GNSO
>
> community. Volunteers should express interest and reasonable knowledge or
> experience with the process of revising the ICANN Bylaws or GNSO operating
> procedures.  Stakeholder Groups are requested to identify volunteers by
> letter to the GNSCO Council Chair by
>
> 22 July 2016.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> "The Drafting Team shall comprise those volunteers from the
>>  GNSO community which are identified by their Constituencies
>>  and Stakeholder Groups"
>>
>> Does that mean NCA's are excluded, or are NCA's considered
>> to be their own 1-person stakeholder groups?
>>
>>         Julf
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160629/801ff321/attachment-0001.html>