RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Some Thoughts on the Bicameral Model

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Please find my thoughts below.  Except for his comments about the NomCom
reps, I find myself in general agreement with most of Milton's points
(did I actually just say that??) . . .  Thanks.  Jon

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 11:55 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Some Thoughts on the Bicameral Model

 

 

Thanks, Chuck, nice attempt to lay out and clarify the issues. MY point
by point responses:

-----Original Message-----
>*      I prefer what someone I think called the '1-house divided' model
>that I understand to mean the following: We still function as one
>Council but votes on the Council are counted by houses.

MM: I agree with this.

> *     The Non-Contracted Stakeholders have two Stakeholder
> Groups each having equal votes excluding any voting NomCom reps: 1)
> Non-Commercial Users; 2) Commercial Users.

MM: Yes, maintaining parity among the commercial and noncommercial users
would be an unbending requirement for us and ALAC as I understand their
position.

We (NCUC) have made clear our feeling that there is not really any need
for Nomcom reps on any side of the user-contracting party aisle, but
also that we are willing to compromise on that to reach agreement. We
have also made it clear that the role most consistent with the actual
purpose of Nomcom would be to appoint the chair, which is where
independence is most needed.

>*      Each house determines for itself how many Council
>representatives it will have with a general goal to keep the size of
the
>Council to a minimal size as recommended by the BGC WG.

MM: This would be a mistake; we should agree here on how many seats and
not create future opportunities for political games and manipulation and
create more needless work for everyone. I'd say no more than 6 on the
user side would be necessary.

JN:  I agree that this needs to be agreed-upon during this process

> *     Note that other variations of this could
> work, e.g., 3-3-1.

Right, the number is not as important as the fact that an independent
Nomcom rep is thrown in there as a tiebreaker and independent
perspective. I reiterate my strong feeling that it is unacceptable and
even absurd for Nomcom to insist on a specific proportion of the votes.

I find Avri's insistence on a specific number for Nomcom, as if it were
a "constituency" or special interest group that deserves parity of
representation, to be wrongheaded and not even consistent with the
original basis for having nomcom. Nomcom's only function is to introduce
independent, non constituency based perspectives. Nomcom is not an
"interest" or stakeholder group that deserves a specific quantity of
representation.

JN:  Proportionality of NomCom rep voting power is inextricably
intertwined with the voting thresholds.  To argue one without the other
is premature.  


>*      Non-Contracted Stakeholders:
>       *       8 Non-Commercial Reps
>       *       8 Commercial Reps
>       *       2 Nom-Com Reps
> My suggestion would be that the NomCom select
>one rep each from the Non-Commercial and Commercial
>communities who are not currently associated with any Non-Contracted
> Stakeholder Groups.

These numbers may be ok and may be too big. We can discuss. If 8 for
each SG turns out to be the right number, then 2 Nomcoms might be
needed; if a smaller number then one would do.



JN:  Considering the new mission of Council, we should be reducing its
size not increasing it.


>*      I personally think that 8-8-2 would
>create two large of a Council so I would prefer smaller numbers but I
>believe this should primarily be the decision of the Non-Contracted
>Stakeholders House.

I share your worries abotu the size but given the heterogeneity of user
interests relative to contracting parties it might be ok. If by "the
decision of the Non-contracted Stakeholders house" you mean that you
will defer to our agreementin this process, fine; if you mean that the
numbers would be set later through some political wrangling among the
two SGs, I'd say no, let's settle it now, or give the Board agreed
principles with which to settle it.



JN:  Agreed.

>*      An alternative to Avri's model would be to seat NomCom
>reps at the Council level as we do now rather than at the house level;
I
>am not sure that is any different but I suppose it depends on how we
>structure it.

If there is any case for Nomcom seats it is a case that involves having
them engaged in the house discussions at all times.

JN:  Agreed - under this model, all of the voting should be done at a
house level - it would be pointless not to give the NomCom reps a vote
just at the Council level.


>*      All policy work - 60% of both houses; this includes but
>is not necessarily limited to consensus policies as defined in
>registry/registrar agreements, best practice positions, and GNSO
>responses to direction requested from the Board or other ICANN entities
>(e.g., New gTLD policy, ICANN Travel policy, etc.).

Not sure I agree with this.

JN:  This math doesn't work.  For example, in the case of a contracted
party house, 60% of 4-4-1 (or 3-3-1) would require at least 1 voter from
each of the two contracted parties to support.  I think that we need to
draw a distinction between super-majority policy recommendation (one
that the Board must approve unless there is a 2/3rds majority vote of
the Board) and a majority policy recommendation (one that the Board can
approve with a majority vote).  I'm ok with a supermajority
recommendation requiring at least 1 vote of every stakeholder group
(perhaps a requirement of 2/3 majority of both houses).  A majority
recommendation, however, should be able to move forward without the
support of 1 entire stakeholder group.  I don't like the idea that
policy could move forward without any support from 2 stakeholder groups
(simple majority in each house).  Alan's idea on that one has some merit
to me - 2/3rds of one house and a simple majority of the other.   I
agree that the initiation of a PDP and setting up working groups should
have some support in each house.  Unless otherwise indicated, all other
votes should be a majority of both houses.  Ideally, there shouldn't be
any voting at the Council level - otherwise we would introduce the whole
parity problem if the size of the houses are not equal. 


>*      My basic assumption is that a simple majority
>for any policy decisions of the Council is unacceptably low to call
>consensus.

Not necessarily; if there is a majority of BOTH houses then it is more
than a simple majority; it shows support across contracting and user
parties. I think 60% may give a specific contracting party constituency
an effective veto, or something uncomfortably close to it.

> At the same time, I don't think we want to
> create grid-lock either.

Everyone in favor of gridlock, raise your hand!

JN:  Depends on the issue :-)


>*      Council leadership
>
>
>       *       Independent, non-voting chair

I'd be willing to let the chair vote, to break ties or cross threshholds

>*      I prefer the approach of the NomCom providing a
>slate of possible chairs and the Council selects the chair from that
>slate.

Hmm, here I may be a hard-core Nomcom supporter. I hope Avri is smiling.
It may be best to have Nomcom select Chair on their own. If
independence/neutrality is the goal, it makes more sense than dealing
with dominant coalitions among the SGs.

JN:  I was persuaded by those who opposed this on our last call.  It
would be difficult to administer and problematic with regard to
confidentiality of NomCom reps.


>* The NomCom role in this regard could be combined
>with identifying possible chairs for working groups.

Yes, another good function for Nomcom. Independence will be absolutely
essential and that is nomcom's only value-added. No need to connect this
to the Chair, however.

>*      Two vice chairs, one each elected by each of the two
>Houses.

I see no need for this. Chair assistants could be appointed ad hoc.

JN:  I like Chuck's idea on this point.


>*Director Elections
>
>*I still like the proposal that Jon put forward: "At the
>end of the current term for Seat 14, Seats 13 and 14 both may not be

I prefer the idea of just having the two houses elect a rep, but am
flexible on this issue/



JN:  I agree with Chuck, though we need to figure out a way to ensure
voting parity if the two houses aren't the same size.  With that said, I
am open to more discussion on the merits of each house electing a
Director if folks feel strongly about it.    


Bottom line: Devils or no, let's not get too stuck in the details. The
two house proposal solves a lot of the distribution of power issues that
many of us are concerned about. If we can hammer out a basic proposal
along with a disclaimer to the Board that says, "there may be devils in
the details, and the angels [cough] in this WG leave it to you to
identify them in your implementation."

The two-house proposal could be a major step forward and it would be
absurd to get this close to a solution and then fail based on small
details or petty intransigencies. 

JN:  Wholeheartedly agree.