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

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

Milton, I take it that your point would be in addition to the language
from the Joint User Group proposal, not in lieu of it?  
 
All: at the risk of being too pedantic, I propose we change 67% to 2/3
wherever it appears, since it makes a difference. Example:  in a 9-voter
group, 6 votes is 2/3, but it is not 67%, that would take 6.03 votes,
which translates to 7. 
 
Steve     

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 10:12 AM
To: Nevett, Jonathon; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking 



Jon and all: 

I have added the point that Alan and I discussed with respect to #6
below

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:55 AM
To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking 

 

Here is a document that suggests the snapshot of where we are and a
couple of suggested ways forward.  The issues in yellow need to be
decided.  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.  Unless otherwise stated, all voting of
the Council will be counted at a house level. 

 

2.      Composition 

 

        a.      GNSO Council would be comprised of two voting houses,
including three Nominating Committee Representatives 

                                                                  i.
Contracted Party House - an equal number of registry and registrar
representatives and 1 Nominating Committee representative.  The number
of registry and registrar stakeholders will be in the range of 3 to 4
for each group to be determined by such stakeholder groups by August 29,
2008.  If no agreement is reached by such date, the number of
representatives for each group will be 4.  

                                                                 ii.
User House - an equal number of commercial users and non-commercial user
representatives and 1 Nominating Committee representative.  The number
of commercial and non-commercial stakeholders will be in the range of 5
to 7 for each group to be determined by such stakeholder groups by
August 29, 2008.  If no agreement is reached by such date, the number of
representatives for each group will be 6. 

 

3.      Leadership 

        a.      One GNSO Council Chair (Election criteria/process to be
determined in the next 30 days) 
        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 (currently >33% of vote of Council) -- greater
than 33% vote of both houses or at least 67% vote of one house 
        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 (currently >50% of vote of Council)
-- greater than 33% vote of both houses or at least 67% vote of one
house 
        e.      Approval of a PDP without Super-Majority (currently >50%
of vote of Council) -- 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 in one house and simple majority in the other; or 

                                                                 ii.
60% majority of both houses

                                                               iii.
Other options??

        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 without Nominating Committee
representatives voting.  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 appointed members of or
directly involved in one of the GNSO user stakeholder groups. 

 

6.      Representation 

        a.      All three groups must strive to fulfill pre-established
objective criteria regarding broadening outreach and deepening
participation from a diverse range of participants. Implementation of
the tripartite arrangement should be contingent on this. 

 

b. All SGs must have rules and processes in place that make is possible
for any and all people and organizations eligible for the Stakeholder
Group to join, participate and be heard regardless of their policy
viewpoints