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

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

Steve:

 

Under the ICANN Bylaws, the scope of the GNSO is to be a
"policy-development body . . . responsible for developing and
recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic
top-level domains."

 

Everything that the GNSO does should be related to this scope.  I don't
see any reason why voting on policy development would be treated
differently with regard to parity than policy approval.  There are
already different % thresholds for different votes along the process
(issues report, initiating PDP, etc.).

 

Thanks.

 

Jon 

 

________________________________

From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 9:48 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Nevett, Jonathon; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Voting Thresholds Update

 

Chuck, 

 

Jon's chart lists eight other categories of votes besides approval of
the outcome of a PDP. Some relate to earlier stages of a PDP; two are
for elections (for Council chair and Board slots); and one is listed as
"all other GNSO business."  I suspect that most votes taken in GNSO
Council fall into this category.  For a current example, consider the
various votes that have been taken (most recently at the Council's Paris
meeting) regarding what studies (if any) will be undertaken related to
Whois.  This is not "unrelated to policy" but at the same time it is not
a recommendation to adopt a policy to which contracted parties will be
bound.  

 

Steve

________________________________

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 2:02 AM
To: Metalitz, Steven; Nevett, Jonathon; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Voting Thresholds Update

Steve,

 

Please see my responses to the questions you raised in your last
paragraph.

 

Chuck

         

        
________________________________


        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
        Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 4:35 PM
        To: Nevett, Jonathon; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Voting Thresholds Update

        Thanks for the chart Jon, this is very helpful.   

         

        I believe you are correct that it is possible for a consensus
policy to be adopted by a simple majority vote of the Council if it is
then approved by a supermajority (2/3+) of the Board.  Could the staff
look into whether this scenario has ever occurred and if so on what
issue(s)?  

         

        The much more common scenario would seem to be the supermajority
approval of a policy  by GNSO, followed by Board ratification unless 2/3
of the Board rejects it.  Indeed, even on the issue we are engaged in
discussing, although it did not arrive before the Board in the form of
actual votes taken at the Council level, the Board clearly perceived
that there was no supermajority in support of either of the proposals
before it (BGC or Joint Users Group) and deferred action in the hope of
achieving a consensus (again, not in the sense of a formal Council
vote).  

         

        Indeed, the argument we heard against the Joint Users Group
proposal in Paris and before was that it would enable the "users" to
command a supermajority vote against the "suppliers," and thus force the
latter to comply contractually with consensus policies that they
opposed, unless the suppliers could convince a supermajority of the
Board to reject them.  Of course, that objection can be satisfied in
many ways that do not require an equalization of votes between
"suppliers" and "users."   

         

        More broadly, what is the justification for any special
consideration for "suppliers" on any issue other than development of
consensus policies to which "suppliers" may become contractually bound
over their objection?   Whether or not "parity" were maintained on
approval of consensus policies, should we be looking at a different vote
allocation altogether for all other categories of GNSO Council activity?

        [Gomes, Chuck] What type of 'other categories of GNSO Council
activity are you thinking of?  The GNSO is a policy development body.
Are you specifically thinking of election of Directors and Council
officers?  Are there other cateogies?  With regard to directors, they
will have influence in terms of contract amendments and new contract
approvals and in terms of possible mission creep that could
significantly impact registries and registrars.  Council officers are in
a position where they could lead the Council into areas beyond the
GNSO's mission.  Put another way, if a vote is on something for which a
registrar or registry would not become contractually bound, why should a
group of registrars or registries cast as many votes as all ""users" put
together, or indeed, why should they cast any votes at all as a separate
group?  [Gomes, Chuck] I need some examples of what type of actions you
are thinking of.  I am not even sure the Council should be doing things
unrelated to policy but maybe I am missing something. 

         

        Steve

         

        
________________________________


        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
        Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 11:01 AM
        To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Voting Thresholds Update

        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