Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Attempt at final de minimis consensus

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

As I have mentioned before, I am not in a position to sign on to any  
decision that includes fewer then 3 nomcom appointees, though I was  
able to sign on to where one where there was a non voting NA chair.  I  
have checked this with my fellow NAs and this is confirmed.  And while  
I know that Jon presented a cogent argument explaining that if the NA  
is only there for tie-breaking, then 1 vote is enough whether it is in  
a house of 7 or 19.  However, since I still believe that the voice of  
the NA is also relevant, and I do not believe, building on Alan's  
comment, that the voice of 1 in 7 is as strongas the voice of 1 in 19,  
i cannot sign on to such potential proportions.
I will go further, I think the solution we are deriving is too complex  
when one adds in the vote thresholds (i kept waiting for the 'phase of  
the moon' clause), and I believe a recommendation without those  
thresholds is only  a shell.
a.

On 24 Jul 2008, at 10:15, philip.sheppard@xxxxxx wrote:

> Here is an attempt at a final proposal for the Board.
> It summarises the things we were asked to consider (structure) but  
> leaves
> for further consideration options of those we were not (PDP, GNSO
> chair)and seem to be rushing on when we do not actually need to. I am
> concerned these PDP detals will trip us up and we will lose  
> consensus on
> the big picture. The first feedback we need if whether the Board can
> tolerate the bicameral idea. Philip
> -------------------
> PRINCIPLES
> A. No 1 of the 4 SGs should have a veto for any vote
> B. Binding policy should have at least one vote of support from 3 of  
> the 4
> SGs
> C. Each House will determine its own total number of seats.
> D. Equal number of votes between registries and registrars.
> E. Equal number of votes between commercial and non-commercial users
> F. A rotational election of Board directors (detail below)
>
> STRUCTURE
> 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
> GNSO Council would be divided into two voting houses
> Contracted Party Council - registries, registrars, 1 Nominating
> Committee representative
>
> User Council - commercial users, non-commercial users, 1 Nominating
> Commitee representative
>
> 3.Leadership
> Two GNSO Vice Chairs - one elected from each of the voting houses
>
> 4.Board Elections
> 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; BUT both sets 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 the appointed representatives to one of the GNSO  
> user
> stakeholder groups.
>
> Details for completion after Board approval of the basic structue  
> above
> 5. PDP votes based on different thresholds for different parts of  
> the PDP
> process and abiding by the principle above.
> 6. GNSO chair
>
> END