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

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

I like 2/3.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
        Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 10:42 AM
        To: Milton L Mueller; Nevett, Jonathon;
gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking

        
        
        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