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

["Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I note also that there has not really been agreement on principle G, but
let's discuss that.

> -----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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >