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

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

Chuck:  There only would be one chair and two vice chairs in my proposal
- thanks.  Jon

 

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.

 

 

________________________________

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 11:34 AM
To: Nevett, Jonathon; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking 

 

We could then end up with 3 vice-chairs.  That may be okay; is that want
we want.

 

Chuck

         

        
________________________________


        From: Nevett, Jonathon [mailto:jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 11:31 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking


        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 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.