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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

My recollection is that the current By-Laws use "greater than 66%".

At 24/07/2008 10:42 AM, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
> 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
>
>
>    * 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.
>
>    * Composition
>
>
>    * 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.
>
>    * Leadership
>        * One GNSO Council Chair (Election 
> criteria/process to be determined in the next 30 days)
>        * Two GNSO Vice Chairs ? one elected from each of the voting houses
>
>
>    * Voting Thresholds
>        * Create an Issues Report ? either 
> greater than 25% vote of both houses or simple 
> majority of one house (currently 25% of vote of Council)
>        * 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
>        * 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)
>        * 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
>        * 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
>        * 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??
>    * 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
>    * All other GNSO Business ? simple majority of both voting houses
>
>
>    * Board Elections
>        * 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.
>
>    * Representation
>        * 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