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

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

Steve,
 
Regarding the threshold for initiating a PDP that is within scope, I
think I am more willing to be flexible than for one that is out of
scope.  From what you said that is where the IPC is concerned (4.b not
4.c); is that correct?
 
The RyC supports the requirement that SGs document representativeness as
you saw in the last two proposals I put forward.  The BGC WG also
devoted considerable attention to this issue and I believe it is fair to
say that the Board approved the BGC WG recommendations in that regard.
If there is dispute about that, we could easily seek clarification from
the Board.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
        Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 6:14 PM
        To: Nevett, Jonathon; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking

        
        
        Thanks for this Jon, it is quite helpful.  
         
        An initial reaction from IPC members was that the threshold for
initiating a PDP (item 4(b)) below) needs to be re-examined.  One
"house" should not be able to block the initiation of a PDP that is
strongly supported by the other "house." Accepting that a majority vote
for a recommendation must have at least majority support in both houses,
the ability to prevent a PDP from even being launched should not be
accorded to either house.  If a supermajority of some level (e.g., 2/3
or 3/4) exists in one house, a PDP should be launchable.  Otherwise the
conclusion that one house controls the process will be inescapable.  
         
        Another point that should be retained from previous proposals is
that all stakeholder groups must meet objective criteria for
representativeness and breadth.  As I recall this was non-controversial,
but I am sure I will be corrected if my recollection is wrong!  
         
        Steve  
________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
        Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 5:46 PM
        To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking

        
        

        Updated with comments from Avri and I corrected a couple of
typos . . .

         

        Folks:  The following is my attempt to organize the current
thinking after discussions we have had related to the bicameral voting
proposal.  I look forward to continuing the dialogue on the list and
again on the call on Thursday.  Thanks.  Jon

         

        GNSO Restructure Proposal - for discussion purposes only

         

        1.      One GNSO Council with two voting "houses" - referred to
as bicameral voting - GNSO Council will meet as one, but houses may
caucus on their own as they see fit. 

         

        2.      Composition 

         

                a.      GNSO Council would be comprised of 21 Members -
3 registries, 3 registrars, 6 commercial users, 6 non-commercial users,
and 3 Nominating Committee representatives. (This point is subject to
discussion as each of the stakeholder groups might want to discuss
changes to the number of folks serving on Council, but there must be an
equal number of votes between registries and registrars, as well as
between commercial and non-commercial users, e.g. 4 registries and 4
registrars would be ok). 
                b.      GNSO Council would be divided into two voting
councils 

        
i.      Contracted Party Council - 3 registries, 3 registrars, 1
Nominating Committee representative (subject to change as long as there
are an equal number of registries and registrars)

                                                                     ii.
User Council - 6 commercial users, 6 non-commercial users, 1 Nominating
Commitee representative (subject to change as long as there are an equal
number of commercial and non-commercial users)

         

        3.      Leadership 

                a.      One GNSO Council Chair appointed by Nominating
Committee as Chair 
                b.      Two GNSO Vice Chairs - one elected from each of
the voting houses 

         

        4.      Voting Thresholds 

                a.      Create an Issues Report - either greater than
25% vote of both houses or simple majority of one house (currently 25%
of vote of Council) 
                b.      Initiate a PDP within Scope of the GNSO per
ICANN Bylaws and advice of ICANN GC - greater than a 33% vote of both
houses (currently >33% of vote of Council) 
                c.      Initiate a PDP not within Scope of the GNSO per
ICANN Bylaws and advice of ICANN GC - >66% majority of one house and a
simple majority of the other (currently >66% of vote of Council) 
                d.      Appoint a Task Force - at least 33% vote of both
houses (currently >50% of vote of Council) 
                e.      Options for Approval of a PDP without
Super-Majority (currently >50% of vote of Council) 

        
i.      simple majority of both houses; or

                                                                     ii.
At least 67% majority of one house and simple majority of the other; or

                                                                    iii.
simple majority of both houses, but requires that at least one
representative of at least 3 of the 4 stakeholder groups supports

                f.      Options for Super-Majority Approval of a PDP
(currently >66% of vote of Council) 

        
i.      at least 67% majority of both houses; or

                                                                     ii.
at least 67% majority in one house and simple majority in the other; or 

                                                                    iii.
60% majority of both houses

                g.      Removal of NomCom Representative (currently 75%
of Council) 

        
i.      At least 75% of User Council to remove NomCom Rep on User
Council

                                                                     ii.
At least 75% of Contracted Parties Council to remove NomCom Rep on
Contracted Parties Council

                                                                    iii.
At least 75% of both voting councils to remove GNSO Chair

                h.      All other GNSO Business - simple majority of
both voting houses 

         

        5.      Board Elections 

                a.      Options for Election of Board Seats 13 & 14 at
the end of the current terms (currently simple majority vote of Council)


        
i.      Contracted Parties Council elects Seat 13 by a majority vote and
User Council elects Seat 14 by a majority vote; or

                                                                     ii.
Contracted Parties Council elects Seat 13 by a majority vote and User
Council elects Seat 14 by a majority vote without Nominating Committee
representatives voting; or 

                                                                    iii.
Contracted Parties Council elects Seat 13 by a 60% vote and User Council
elects Seat 14 by a 60% vote (requiring at least one representative of
both stakeholder groups to support); or 

                                                                   iv.
Entire GNSO Council votes on both seats with weighted voting to maintain
parity between contracted and non-contracted parties.  Criteria for
Seats 13 and 14 would be that both may not be held by individuals who
are employed by, an agent of, or receive any compensation from an
ICANN-accredited registry or registrar, nor may they both be held by
individuals who are members of or directly involved in one of the GNSO
user stakeholder groups; or

                                                                     v.
simple majority of both houses, but requires that at least one
representative of at least 3 of the 4 stakeholder groups supports