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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I have a few comment on this interesting proposal.

First I would like to note that it goes in the opposite direction of  
two trends:
- Seems more legislative then managerial
- Seems less oriented toward consensus (however we define that word in  
ICANN)
I am concerned that we would often find ourselves in committee.  That  
is, what is to say that the version of motions/policy that the two  
houses agreed to would remain in synch.  We have often seen how  
important changes get made to most every motion at some point before  
the vote.  This proposal would necessitate  a whole process of joint- 
meeting to resolve these conflicts in language.  I am not sure who  
would chair such meetings and the joint committees would be  
organized.  This joint meeting would need to find language that could  
then go back to the individual houses for a revote.  Unless of course  
both houses participate in the joint committee, in which case aren't  
we right back to where we are now?
a.



On 17 Jul 2008, at 00:38, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:

> 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
> Ø      Comprised of an equal number of registrars and registries and  
> one Nominating Committee appointee
> Ø      Elects its own Chair
> Ø      Elects Board Seat 13 at the end of the current term
>
> The User Council
> Ø      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)
> Ø      Elects its own Chair
> Ø      Elects Board Seat 14 at the end of the current term
>
> PDP Process
> Ø      In order to create an issues report, it would take a majority  
> vote of either house
> Ø      In order to initiate a PDP and create working groups, it  
> would take a majority vote of both houses
> Ø      In order to send a policy recommendation to the Board without  
> a supermajority, it would take a majority vote of both houses
> Ø      In order to send a supermajority policy recommendation to the  
> Board, it would take a 2/3rd majority of both houses
> ICANN Meetings/Communications
> Ø      Both houses meet jointly for a public forum at ICANN meetings
> Ø      Both houses (or subcommittees of each when appropriate) meet  
> jointly to discuss policy issues
> Ø      Each house has a formal meeting separate from the other
> Ø      A joint listserv is maintained for cross communications