Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] An alternative proposal for GNSO Structure

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 16 Jul 2008, at 10:13, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> <GNSO Voting Structure Proposal - Gomes - 15 Jul 08.doc>

> 1.	General voting structure 4-4-4-4-2 (+ an option for a neutral non- 
> voting chair and/or a vice chair)
I am more still comfortable with the 4x4 formulation then I am with a  
3344, 3355, 3366 or 3354 ...  formulation, but I realize I am not of  
the constituencies for whom this is the critical issue.  For me the  
Picket Fence Imperative does create some equality constraints and  
fairness creates others, but I do not have constituency politics that  
revolve around these issues and thus will go along with whatever  
formula the 6 constituencies for whom this is a matter of life and  
death can agree to in respect to the voting rations between  
constituencies.

On te matter of nomcom enfranchisement I talked to other nomcom  
appointees and got an initial willingness to consider this, that is:
- 2 voting nomcom members
- 1 non voting chair  from nomcom

One of the proposals that was floated (I do not remember if it was  
privately or on the list) is that the non-voting chair could be  
selected by a majority vote of GNSO council members from a list  
provided by the nomcom.  This would be ok and personally I think  
better then having the nomcom just pick the chair.
Note: there is strong resistance to disenfranchising nomcom appointees  
completely.  As things stand, I do not think I could be part of any  
consensus that included disenfranchisement of nomcom appointees.
Further, i think a condition that might be accepted is that of the two  
voting nomcom appointees, one be selected with commercial background  
and one selected with non-commercial background - though the  
definition is tricky and what does one do about people who have a  
mixed background? -Does breadth of experience disqualify someone for  
nomcom appointment.
> 2) as soon as possible after the end of the terms of the existing  
> NomCom reps, one of the seats must be held by someone whose primary  
> employment is for a commercial entity and one must be held by  
> someone whose primary employment is for a noncommercial entity or is  
> an individual user.
This may help resolve the issue, but how does one treat someone who  
has employment with both commercial and non commercial institutions,  
with neither being primary.  Or someone who is retired.  How about a  
professor from a Business School who has strong IBM funding or a  
Computer Science Professor who also is an Intel researcher or an NGO  
employee who is a retired CFO (I know all of these people and any of  
them might be an interesting candidate for the nomcom).
A point that comes up is whether this achieves anything that needs to  
be achieved by this group.  But in the spirit of considering change,  
this is being considered and viewed as possible.
> The following requirement for consensus policy PDPs: "Before any  
> consensus policy process is initiated, ICANN counsel will  
> definitively state whether or not a proposed policy area is within  
> the registry contract picket fence.  In cases where it is not within  
> the picket fence: 1) Before any PDP begins, it must be clearly  
> communicated to the GNSO that any policy recommendations made cannot  
> be enforced upon registries or registrars and hence would depend on  
> voluntary compliance by registries and registrars; 2) the GNSO must  
> decide whether or not to initiate a PDP based on the understanding  
> that any proposed policy may not be considered consensus policy."

> For all policy, process or procedure development activity, the  
> extent of outreach and the level of representativeness of  
> constituency and/or stakeholder positions should be documented.
I think these are  good policy initiatives no matter what we decide,  
or don't decide on structural organization and should be considered as  
part of the forthcoming work on PDP definition.
thanks to all of you putting forward proposals that give interesting  
things to think about
a.