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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Perhaps we could address the problem of one 
stakeholder group voting against a consensus 
policy and the effectively vetoing is would be to 
define a super majority as 2/3 in one house and a simple majority in the other.
Alan

At 18/07/2008 10:26 AM, tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx wrote:

> 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >