ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-consensus-wg]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Attempt at final de minimis consensus
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:34:13 +0200


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









<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy