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

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

Thanks for the great feedback Milton and Jon.  I inserted a few
responses and one question below.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Nevett, Jonathon [mailto:jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 4:14 PM
        To: Milton L Mueller; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Some Thoughts on the Bicameral
Model
        
        

        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
        [Gomes, Chuck] Please clarify.  Are the two of you saying simply
that we need to agree on the numbers of reps for each house now even if
the numbers are different for the two houses or are you saying that the
numbers of the two houses have to be the same?  I am fine with the
former, but  I don't see why the numbers need to be the same as long as
voting thresholds are set in a way that always involves a specified
level of support from each house.
        
        > *     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.
        [Gomes, Chuck] I agree that it would be a lot cleaner if we can
agree to the numbers now. 

        >*      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.
        [Gomes, Chuck] Agreed.  I don't think what I proposed would
work. 

        
        >*      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. 
        [Gomes, Chuck] This also was a mistake on my part.  I intended
that it would not be possible for any one stakeholder group to veto a
vote but a 60% threshold would not accomplish that goal for any of the
following house voting structures: 3-3-1, 4-4-1, 5-5-1, 6-6-1, 5-5-2,
6-6-2; 7-7-2; or 8-8-2;  it would accomplish that goal for the following
structures, although I do not recommend them: 3-3-2, 4-4-2.  A better
approach in my opinion would be to require a simple majority in each
house with at least one vote of support from at least three SGs; I think
this would achieve my objective without being quite as stringent as a
simple majority of one house and 2/3 in the other.  Why shouldn't there
be voting at the Council level; it seems to me that that is easier than
having separate votes at the house level first unless you are not
envisioning the Council meeting at all; if we do that, then we miss the
collaboration of the entire Council.

        
        >*      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.
        [Gomes, Chuck] I do not want to give one SG the ability to veto.

        
        > 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.
        [Gomes, Chuck] I am not hard line on this issue. 
        
        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.
        [Gomes, Chuck] My thinking here was as follows: The NomCom could
be tasked with identifying a slate of candidates that could be used for
the Council to select the Council chair, WG chairs and other leadership
positions where neutrality is needed.  The candidates in the pool could
be evaluated depending on the needs for the specific position to fill. 
        
        >*      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.
        [Gomes, Chuck] My main point is that I believe it is quite
valuable to have a very small leadership group.  How would they be
appointed?  It seems like house elections would be an easy way to do
this but I am not locked into that. 

        
        >*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."
        [Gomes, Chuck] I think that this is an issue that does not have
to be a showstopper. 
        
        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.