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

["Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Let's call this the "divorce" proposal. 
If I had to choose between this one and Chuck's I would prefer Chuck's.
I think it is essential for suppliers and users to be engaged in
interaction around issues of policy and procedure at all times. I can
recall many instances in which policy ideas that seemed good from the
user side didn't sound so good one a registry or registrar explained
what would have to happened if they were executed by a registry or
registrar. Segregation of the two does not seem a good idea to me.

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/> 


 


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
        Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:39 AM
        To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] New GNSO Reform Concept
        
        

        If folks are interested in a more pronounced restructuring of
the GNSO Council, we might want to consider the following proposal on
our upcoming call.  Thanks.  Jon

         

         

         

        New Compromise Position for a bicameral GNSO

         

        GNSO Council comprised of two houses with the following
characteristics: 

         

        The Contracted Party Council 

        *      Comprised of an equal number of registrars and registries
and one Nominating Committee appointee

        *      Elects its own Chair

        *      Elects Board Seat 13 at the end of the current term

         

        The User Council

        *      Comprised of an equal number of business users and
non-commercial users and a Nominating Committee appointee (or some other
odd-numbered composition agreed to by the user groups)

        *      Elects its own Chair

        *      Elects Board Seat 14 at the end of the current term

         

        PDP Process

        *      In order to create an issues report, it would take a
majority vote of either house

        *      In order to initiate a PDP and create working groups, it
would take a majority vote of both houses

        *      In order to send a policy recommendation to the Board
without a supermajority, it would take a majority vote of both houses

        *      In order to send a supermajority policy recommendation to
the Board, it would take a 2/3rd majority of both houses

         

        ICANN Meetings/Communications

        *      Both houses meet jointly for a public forum at ICANN
meetings

        *      Both houses (or subcommittees of each when appropriate)
meet jointly to discuss policy issues

        *      Each house has a formal meeting separate from the other

        *      A joint listserv is maintained for cross communications