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

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

Whereas I think that Jon's proposal has potential and support further
investigation, I want to point out the following: If only a simple
majority of each house is needed to approve a consensus policy then, as
Jon's example below illustrates, be possible for a consensus policy to
be approved without any support of two stakeholder groups, one in each
house.  I don't think that would be consensus.  What about requiring 60%
for consensus and a higher threshold for supermajority?
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
        Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:48 AM
        To: Philip Sheppard; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] New GNSO Reform Concept
        
        

        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