RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Attempt at final de minimis consensus v2

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

I need to understand what is meant by binding policy.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 7:48 AM
> To: Metalitz, Steven
> Cc: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] Attempt at final de minimis consensus v2
> 
> 
> For clarity the BC supports these amendments lets take this 
> v2 as the substantive proposal.
> > Philip
> --------------------
> > If this approach were taken (and it might be the best 
> available course 
> > at this juncture), I would propose two amendments which are in CAPS 
> > below.  Equivalent provisions should also be included in the more 
> > detailed proposal (based on Jon's outline) if we can agree on that.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> > philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
> > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 4:16 AM
> > To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] Attempt at final de minimis consensus
> >
> >
> > 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; NO 2 
> OF THE SGs 
> > SHOULD HAVE A VETO ON INITIATION OF A PDP 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) 
> G.  EACH SG 
> > TO MEET OBJECTIVE, PRE-ESTABLISHED CRITERIA OF BREADTH AND 
> > REPRESENTATIVENESS
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>