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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

i think i can sell that if others buy into it.

a.

On 24 Jul 2008, at 17:30, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:

> In fact, let me propose that the at-large NomCom rep serve as the  
> non-voting chair unless there is a majority vote by both houses  
> electing someone else.  That way we have a default Chair in case  
> there isn’t majority support from both houses.  If there is a Chair  
> elected from one of the houses, then the at-large NomCom rep becomes  
> a Vice Chair in lieu of the Vice Chair elected from that house.
> Essentially the leadership team will be one rep from each house plus  
> one at-large NomCom rep.
> Thanks.
>
> Jon
>
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 11:19 AM
> To: Nevett, Jonathon; Milton L Mueller; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking
>
> I am okay with a non-votiing at-large NomCom rep.
>
> Chuck
>
> From: Nevett, Jonathon [mailto:jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 11:16 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Milton L Mueller; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking
> 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 includeMilton'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
>
> 	• 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 [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.
>         • Leadership
> 		• 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.
>                 • 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 [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??
>                 • 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. [Gomes, Chuck]  I would prefer  
> to allow NomCom appointees to vote but can support this if there is  
> strong objective to that.
>         • 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. [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.