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

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck:

 

Thanks for your input - on your point about the Nominating Committee
reps, we could still have three -- one for the CPH (contracted party
house), one for the User/NCP House, and one at-large rep on Council.
The at-large rep could be elected Chair by the group, but doesn't have
to be.  Either way, that rep essentially doesn't vote at either house,
but will be a full participant in the Council meetings and discussions
(not unlike Alan's current participation on Council).  We still would
have the third "independent voice" without requiring that slot be for
the Chair.  Hopefully, that addresses Philip's point about not wanting
to prohibit folks from the stakeholder groups from serving as Chair
because a number have been effective, indeed, in the past.  

 

Thanks.

 

Jon  

 

________________________________

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 10:57 AM
To: Milton L Mueller; Nevett, Jonathon; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking 

 

It is my understanding that we have reached strong consensus if not
unanimous consensus on all the non-yellow highlighted items with the
exception of Milton's addition at the end, which should be highlighted
in yellow.  My comments on the yellow highlighted items are inserted
below.  I used this version instead Bertrand's because Bertrand's did
not include Milton's addition and I didn't have time to determine what
changes Bertrand made.  It would be helpful if Bertrand could highlight
the changes he made.  My time today and tomorrow is very limited but
will do the best I can.

 

Chuck

         

        
________________________________


        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 [Gomes,
Chuck]  I assume this means 1 each voting appointee per house and a
nonvoting chair.  Because the chair is an open issue, it could end up
being only two NomCom reps.  I believe the RyC can support either
scenario here but we do support at least one voting NomCom appointee per
house.

        
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  [Gomes, Chuck] . I am ok with
this.  I would point out though that the number of reps will likely be
affected by the geographical requirements.  Going to 4 reps under the
existing geographical requirements would aggravate a problem we already
have so I would hope that there will be more flexibility in that regard.
That is not an issue for this group but want everyone to know that it
will be factor that impacts the # of reps.

        
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. [Gomes, Chuck]  I support this. 

         

        3.      Leadership 

                a.      One GNSO Council Chair (Election
criteria/process to be determined in the next 30 days) [Gomes, Chuck]  I
support this although it may be hard if lots of people are vacationing
in August.  
                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 [Gomes, Chuck]  The RyC's first choice was 67% of both houses
but we could live with this. 

        
ii.   60% majority of both houses[Gomes, Chuck]  The RyC opposes this
one but if it was deemed as an acceptable compromise, I would support it
and believe that the RyC would support it. 

        
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. [Gomes, Chuck]  I would prefer to allow NomCom appointees to
vote but can support this if there is strong objective to that. 

         

        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. [Gomes, Chuck]  I am okay with this except that I would prefer
deleting the reference to the tripartite arrangement; not sure why that
is there.  I would end it after 'participants. 

         

        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 [Gomes, Chuck]  I support this.