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

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

Picking up on the numerous comments about possible unwieldiness of this
proposed model -- and on Alan's comment (I think?) about how that might
be tackled -- why couldn't this be modified so that instead of two
"houses," there are two divisions of one body, which would almost always
meet together, but the votes would be counted separately by division,
and a motion would have to obtain support from the specified percentage
within each division in order to be adopted.  Really the only time that
the divisions would need to meet and vote separately would be on
election of Board members but that would happen only once a year (once
every two years for each division).  Of course division representatives
would be free to caucus informally as they wished, but the actual debate
and voting would take place in meetings in which both divisions would
participate.  It's just that the votes would not be lumped together but
would be counted separately by division. 
 
The feedback so far from my constituency is that establishing two
separate "houses" would bring an unacceptable burden of overhead with
it, but that the concept of two divisions of a single council might be
viable.  
 
Steve
 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 11:00 AM
To: Milton L Mueller; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] New GNSO Reform Concept



I'm not suggesting segregation - the working groups would be comprised
of folks from all viewpoints. Moreover, there would be joint meetings of
both Councils on policy issues.

 

I'm just wondering if you would prefer this proposal or the status quo?

 

Thanks.

 

Jon

________________________________

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:47 AM
To: Nevett, Jonathon; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] New GNSO Reform Concept

 

 

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