RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] BC input

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

Note that Bertrand's summary didn't include Milton's addtion, which I
think we should all respond to.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 11:48 AM
> To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] BC input
> 
> 
> 1. Rob please use Betrands summary as a base. It is neutral 
> and already structure with agreement items first.
> 
> 2. For the record the BC comments on the last Nevett proposal.
> > 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.
> >
> BC AGREE
> >
> > 2.  Composition
> >
> >
> >
> >     a.      GNSO Council would be comprised of two voting houses,
> > including three Nominating Committee Representatives BC - 
> disagree - 
> > one nom com per house only agreed.
> >                                                                i.
> > Contracted Party House - an equal number of registry and registrar 
> > representatives and 1 Nominating Committee representative.
> BC AGREE
> 
> 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.
> BC - delete this - its a new proposal not discussed.
> 
> >                                                              ii.
> > User House - an equal number of commercial users and non-commercial 
> > user representatives and 1 Nominating Committee representative.
> BC AGREE
>  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.
> > BC - delete this - its a new proposal not discussed.
> Fundamental opposition to one house proposing composition of another
> 
> >
> >
> > 3.  Leadership
> >
> >     a.      One GNSO Council Chair (Election criteria/process to be
> > determined in the next 30 days)
> BC DELETE NEWLY PROPOSED 30 DAY TIMELINE
> >     b.      Two GNSO Vice Chairs - one elected from each of the
> > voting houses
> BC AGREE
> >
> >
> > 4.  Voting Thresholds
> BC - ADD Philips (agReed) principles here please first ( all 
> but the veto one)then then the consequent 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)
> BC AGREE
> >     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
> BC CHANGE TO METALITZ FORMULATION
> 
> >     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)
> BC AGREE
> >     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
> BC WE AGEED TO DELETE THIS AS NO LONGER RELEVANT
> 
> >     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
> BC AGREE
> >     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??
> >
> BC DELETE ALL F, INSERT PHILIP PRINCIPLE A ON VETOS AND STATE 
> REGISTRARS OPPOSED AS THEY WANT WHAT THEY DO NOT HAVE NOW 
> NAMELY A VETO FOR SUPERMAJORITY POLICY OR HOWEVER JON WANTS 
> TO PHRASE IT
> 
> >     g.      Removal of NomCom Representative (currently 75% of
> > Council)
> >
> >                                                                i.
> > At least 75% of User Council to remove NomCom Rep on User Council
> BC AGREE
> >                                                             
>  ii.      At
> > least 75% of Contracted Parties Council to remove NomCom Rep on 
> > Contracted Parties Council
> BC AGREE
> >                                                             
> iii.      At
> > least 75% of both voting councils to remove GNSO Chair
> BC AGREE
> >     h.      All other GNSO Business - simple majority of both voting
> > houses
> BC AGREE
> >
> >
> > 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.
> BC DELETE ALL AND USE PHRASING IN PHILIPS PROPOSAL WHICH I 
> BELEVE GOT AGEEMENT AND REFiNED THIS PROPOSAL ABOVE
> >
> >
> > 6.  Representation
> >
> >     a.      All fOUR groups must strive to fulfill pre-established
> > objective criteria regarding broadening outreach and deepening 
> > participation from a diverse range of participants. 
> Implementation of 
> > the BICAMERAL arrangement should be contingent on this.
> BC AGREE
> >
>