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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Outside of elections, would it be fair to say that most other votes
relate to policy but some have more direct impact than others?
 
Chuck


________________________________

        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