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

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

Might work Steve.  Anything we can do to reduce complexity would be
wise.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
        Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 7:09 PM
        To: Nevett, Jonathon; Milton L Mueller;
gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] New GNSO Reform Concept
        
        
        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