RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Voting Thresholds Update

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Corrected a typo in the attached (8 Board members constitutes a
majority).  Thanks.  Jon

 

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 8 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