ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-consensus-wg]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] New GNSO Reform Concept
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:26:01 -0400


Hi,

Please forgive my slowness, but how does this proposal satisfy the competing constraints on parity?

While the votes are being moved into separate chambers, the mathematical property seem to me to make it associative and hence the same as if it were in a single chamber. All I see this doing is building yet another level of hierarchy, i.e. constituency-> stakeholder group -> chamber -> gnso council.

But you all seem to see it as something essentially different and possibly the solution, and since I really do not understand why this works, and I would like to.

thanks

a.


On 17 Jul 2008, at 19:09, Metalitz, Steven wrote:

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








<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy