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
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
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