RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] BC input

[philip.sheppard@xxxxxx]

>
Suggest changing princile A (to) to (except for removals) and then note
registrar desire for exception for supermajority policy vote. This is a
highly significant principle and objection that needs clear highlghting to
th Board as it has anti trust implications.
Phlp

> 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
>> >
>>
>
>