RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] New GNSO Reform Concept
- To: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] New GNSO Reform Concept
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:54:30 -0400
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?
[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
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.
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 8:22 AM
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
Then binding policy would simply be defined as passing both
houses and being within the picket fence ?
Would that work?