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

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

It seems to me in any scenario where we require more than just a simple 
majority for consensus that one SG may be able to veto a decision.  But I 
believe that any decision, especially policy decisions, should have a higher 
threshold than a simple majority.  A simple majority is an extremely weak level 
of consensus.  As I did in my proposal, I suggest we consider 60% for consensus 
for each side of the house.  At the same time I am not saying that this 
position is a do or die position.  I realize that this may work counter to 
Tony's concern, but simple majority consensus in each house is too low in my 
opinion. I pointed out in an email yesterday that only requiring a simple 
majority for each house would allow approval of positions when two entire 
stakeholder groups do not support them.  That does not seem like a good idea to 
me.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 10:26 AM
> To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] New GNSO Reform Concept
> 
> 
> 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>