[gnso-consensus-wg] Voting Thresholds
Per our discussion yesterday and Steve Metalitz's request, attached is a chart that I have prepared with the various GNSO voting thresholds. Please note that I believe it to be accurate, but it would be great if Robert would review to make sure that I didn't leave anything out. As I review the chart, I see the large number and great importance of issues that are decided by a majority vote, including 1) appointing a Task Force; 2) approving PDP policy recommendations through majority adoption of a Final Report or Supplemental Recommendation (which the Board could adopt as binding Consensus Policy with a majority vote (i.e. a vote of 7 Board members)); 3) electing a GNSO Chair; 4) electing Board Seats 13 and 14; and 5) all other procedural and substantive business of the GNSO that is not otherwise delineated in the Bylaws. This is the reason why I support the BGC recommendation of continuing the current parity between contracted and non-contracted parties. Under the current structure and the BGC proposal, neither "side" enjoys over the other a majority or an advantage in getting a majority. Therefore, neither can dictate the operations of the GNSO. It requires that we all work together and we have the benefit of Nom Com reps to perform the tie-breaker function if necessary. Parity seems to be the most equitable and balanced solution. In an attempt to reach a resolution, therefore, I'd like to focus as much of our discussions as possible on issues that don't impact this balance. A wholesale increase in the voting thresholds on all of these important issues is not the answer, as it would likely result in more gridlock. What other changes could we make that would address the concerns that certain users have raised without giving one "side" a majority over the other? Philip mentioned in his paper taking a look at the allocation of Board seats. We should continue to discuss the merits of this idea. Under the BGC proposal, the balance between commercial users and non-commercial users would change from the current 9-3-1 (1 being the non-voting ALAC rep) to 4-4. We probably should spend some time understanding that balance as well. What else? We are a creative group with a very short time frame to succeed. I hope that we can get some other interesting ideas in the mix and look forward to our upcoming discussions. Best, Jon Attachment:
GNSO voting thresholds.xls
|