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

["Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Steve's approach is an improvement. Avri, here is how I understand it. 

Let's say the contracting parties have 3 Ry and 3 Rr votes (and one Nomcom), 
and the users have 6 and 6 (and one Nomcom). (This proposal will create debates 
about the size of the Council "houses," by the way.) 

We sit and deliberate together and when it comes time to vote, any proposal 
that gets 4 votes from the contracting party side has a majority, any proposal 
that gets 7 votes from the user side has a majority. Or, if a 2/3 is needed, 
any proposal that gets 5 votes from contracting parties and 9 votes from users 
is a supermajority. In theory, it doesn't matter how big either house is, 
although for practical reasons we should keep them as small as possible. 

To accept this proposal I would also strongly advocate that the Nomcom select 
GNSO Council chairs. I can't make any sense of Alan's opposition to this, it 
contradicts everything the Nomcom advocates have said on this WG. If 
"independence" is the prime characteristic and value of Nomcom appointees, 
there is no position where independence is more needed than in the chair. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-
> wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 8:26 PM
> To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] New GNSO Reform Concept
> 
> 
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>