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

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

Very useful feedback Avri.  Thanks.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 2:02 PM
> To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] An alternative proposal for 
> GNSO Structure
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
>