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

[<tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx>]

I agree with Jon that the focus going forward should be on managing the PDP 
process but one of the issues this raises is the ability of any single group of 
participants to veto policy work. On the one side no single party can block the 
launch of the PDP process alone. On the other side (contracted parties) it just 
takes one party not to agree and everything stops. Whether it be on the 
contracted or non-contracted side that isn't a healthy proposition. Neither do 
I think its appropriate that we look towards an appointee from the Noncom to 
break that. The pressure placed on that person who would nominally be viewed as 
a member of that house wouldn't be fair, neither would they have been exposed 
to the views aired in each house. 

As I said yesterday, the devils is in the detail and that's why just agreeing a 
top level set of principles and throwing this to ICANN staff to set the 
implementation rules isn't a good way forward.

If this is going to move forward we need to make progress on some of these 
details across the next week.

Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: 18 July 2008 14:42
To: Milton L Mueller; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] New GNSO Reform Concept


It seems to me that folks are overstating the burden of the proposal.  Who 
chairs the cross constituency meetings?  We could easily switch off or co-chair 
-- as I did with Cheryl in Paris during our joint meeting with ALAC.  

How much additional overhead would there really be?  Remember that most of the 
work is handled at the working group level.  We have discussed setting up 
standing committees to manage the PDP process and administrative issues.  These 
committees could be no different under a bicameral or unicameral approach. 

If we do explore this one divided house model with different votes, aren't we 
just going back to weighted voting?  I am ok with weighted voting, as long as 
there is parity between contracted and non-contracted parties on all votes 
(i.e. the status quo).  Can we achieve consensus on that point?  

What I like about the bicameral proposal is that parity comes from the two 
equal houses and not the number of votes or voters.  I agree with Milton that 
Steve's proposal will create some very difficult issues with regard to the size 
of the rooms under one house.  I fear that such debates might get us back to 
exactly where we started.  With that said, I am happy to hear and consider 
proposals along those lines. 

Finally, in the one house divided model, I would think that all voters should 
elect the two Board seats based on the established criteria (e.g. one from a 
contracted party and one not), instead of splitting up for only those 
elections.  Separate elections only makes sense to me if there are two separate 
houses.  

Thanks.

Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 12:35 AM
To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] New GNSO Reform Concept


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
> >
> >
> >
>