RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] New GNSO Reform Concept

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

Philip:

 

Thanks for your response. My initial reaction is that supermajority
Consensus Policy should be approved by more than just a simple majority
- hence the name.     

In the bicameral scenario, I think that we should stick with the 2/3rd
requirement for a supermajority approval of Consensus Policy.  In order
to get a supermajority, you are correct that it requires at least some
support from each of the 4 groups.  Please recall that the Board MUST
adopt a GNSO supermajority-approved Consensus Policy unless 2/3rds of
the Board votes against the policy.  To achieve approval of Consensus
Policy at all, however, it would require just a simple majority of both
houses and then a majority vote of the Board.  Therefore, under my
proposal, no one group has veto power over Consensus Policy.  

 

In the way of a real life example, let's say that the registrars, the
non-commercials, and the non-com reps all support a whois proposal that
the business users and registries find to be wholly unacceptable.  There
may be enough votes in each house to get a simple majority, but I
wouldn't be comfortable in that scenario to attach the super-majority
label to that proposal requiring only 1/3rd support of the ICANN Board.

 

I also note that your recent 4-4-6-6-0 proposal (which I do not support
for a number of reasons) requires 16 votes of 20 to approve Consensus
Policy, thereby giving a veto for business users and non-commercial
users, but not for registries or registrars. 

 

Thanks.

 

Jon

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 8:22 AM
To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] New GNSO Reform Concept

 

On PDP thresholds,

the 2/3 in both houses requirement for consensus policy is in effect a
veto for each party is it not ?

We all agreed to avoid this.

 

Would a sufficient threshold not be a simple majority in both houses?

Then binding policy would simply be defined as passing both houses and
being within the picket fence ?

Would that work?

 

Philip