RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking

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

Philip:

I absolutely agree that many of the points were not closed on.  The
purpose of the draft is to continue moving the discussion toward
resolution.  

I, for one, need something close to the level of specificity in the
outline in order to support.  Just one point of clarification -- we did
not agree to your principles as written.  For example, I don't agree to
your principles 1 and 2 as written.  We certainly discussed the option
that a supermajority approval of policy would require at least some
support from all of the stakeholder groups in order to force the ICANN
Board to accept policy (absent a 2/3rds vote to the contrary).
Moreover, the one voting issue that we didn't get to discuss at all yet
relates to the removal of Nominating Committee representatives.  I think
for that kind of extraordinary action, we should have support from at
least some of all of the stakeholder groups -- hence the 75%
placeholder.

Similarly, principle 3 is too open-ended.  I wouldn't support a council
that has 12 registrars and 12 registries.  It would be unwieldy.  We
should think about creating parameters.  Perhaps we should agree that
the user house should have an equal number of commercial users and
non-commercial users in the range of 4-8 for each group.  Similarly, the
registries and registrars should have a range of 3-6 for each group.  We
could recommend that the Board give each group 30 days to make a
determination in that range, perhaps with a default of 6-6-4-4 (your
proposal) if no change is agreed upon in 30 days.

We have a short opportunity to control the future of the Council, but
that window is closing.  I hope that we can work through the remaining
issues and reach consensus in the next 60 hours.

Thanks.

Jon



-----Original Message-----
From: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx [mailto:philip.sheppard@xxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:11 AM
To: Nevett, Jonathon
Cc: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking
Importance: High


Thanks for this summary which seems to add some detail we did not close
on.

Lets not forget our agreed principles to test these number against

1. No 1 of the 4 SGs should have a veto for any vote
2. Binding policy should have the support of 3 of the 4 SGs (ie status
quo)
3. Each House will determine its own representation


Thus given the above there are too many specifics on the Jon N summary.

Also, the BC does not support an imposed non com chair - we prefer an
elected chair with majority of both houses

The BC can probably support two elected vice chairs one per house

Philip