<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] BC input
- To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] BC input
- From: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:39:26 -0400
I have concerns with the principles in Philip's/Bertrand's summary. For
example, the no veto principle is not accurate not only for
supermajority approval of a PDP, but also removal of a NonCom Rep.
I think that we should go with the way I have it and remove anything
that folks don't feel are "neutral" per Philip's note.
Thanks.
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 12:06 PM
To: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] BC input
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
> >
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|