RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] More Updated Draft

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

Let me preface my comments with this: I have just now catching up on
list discussion and I am doing it in order of the most recent emails so
I may have missed some discussion.
 
I have three minor edits: 1) In all cases where it says 66%, shouldn't
we say 2/3?  I don't have a hardline position on this but I liked
Steve's earlier suggestion that we use 2/3.  As he pointed out, there
are possible cases where 2/3 will come out to be an integer and I don't
think that 66% ever will so it will always require rounding up.  That
pretty much means that 66% of 2/3 will be the same anyway. 2) In all
cases where a house is refered to as a Council, change them to use the
word 'house' instead of 'council'.  3) In 6a, 'three groups' needs to be
changed to 'four groups'.
 
On 4c, it seems that we are lowering the threshold of initiating an
out-of-scope PDP.  Why would we do that?  A legitimate question from the
RyC is why we would ever even consider initiating a PDP that is out of
scope so it would be our ideal position that we never do it.  But
recognizing that others may not accept that and being aware of the very
late hour in our process, I would suggest that we make this threshold
2/3 of both houses.  Is there any opposition to that?
 
I thought Philip had suggested deleting 4.d because it would be
irrelevant. I would be okay if we deleted it but would not object if we
left it in.
 
I still would like to have a statement that in all policy related
stakeholder and constituency statements, the level of participation must
be documented but I won't hold things up for that.  I will certainly
push hard for that in the PDP process work.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
        Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 6:49 AM
        To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] More Updated Draft
        Importance: High
        
        

        Updated with comments from: 

         

        Alan (changed the nomenclature removing references to at-large,
and I put in Alan's suggestion about having both houses vote to impeach
a NomCom appointee - we discussed making it extraordinarily difficult,
especially considering the difficulty in replacement)

        Milton (I fixed the typo, but didn't remove any yellow for fear
of a tongue-lashing from the BC rep)

        Philip (I changed the cap to 9, but I sincerely hope that the
Board doesn't go that high)

         

        Finally, it what may be my last act as an RC officer, I changed
the supermajority provision.

         

        I support the entire document.

         

        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 

                                                                      i.
Contracted Party House - an equal number of registry and registrar
representatives and 1 Nominating Committee appointee.  The number of
registry and registrar stakeholder representatives will be determined by
the ICANN Board based on input from these stakeholder groups, but shall
be no fewer than 3 and not exceed 4 representatives for each group.  

                                                                    ii.
User/Non-Contracted Party House - an equal number of commercial and
non-commercial user representatives and 1 Nominating Committee
appointee.  The number of commercial and non-commercial stakeholder
representatives will be determined by the ICANN Board based on input
from these stakeholder groups, but shall be no fewer than 5 and not
exceed 9 representatives for each group.  

                                                                  iii.
1 Council-level Nominating Committee Appointee

         

        3.      Leadership 

                a.      One GNSO Council Chair - elected by 60% of both
houses.  If no one is elected Chair, the Council-level Nominating
Committee Appointee shall serve as a non-voting Chair of Council 
                b.      Two GNSO Vice Chairs - one elected from each of
the voting houses.  If the Council Chair is elected from one of the
houses, however, then the Council-level Nominating Committee Appointee
shall serve as one of the Vice Chairs in lieu of the Vice Chair from the
house of the elected Chair.  If the Chair is elected from one of the
houses, that person shall retain his/her vote on that house. 

         

        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 greater than 66% vote of one
house 
                c.      Initiate a PDP not within Scope of the GNSO per
ICANN Bylaws and advice of ICANN GC - greater than 66% vote 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 greater than 66%
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) - Greater than 75% majority in one
house and simple majority in the other 
                g.      Removal of NomCom Appointees (currently 75% of
Council) 

                                                                      i.
At least 75% of User/NCP House and simple majority of Contracted Party
House to remove Nominating Committee appointee on User/NCP House

                                                                    ii.
At least 75% of Contracted Parties House and simple majority of User/NCP
House to remove NomCom Rep on Contracted Parties House

                                                                  iii.
At least 75% of both voting houses to remove the Council-level
Nominating Committee Appointee

                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)


        Board Elections -- Contracted Parties Council elects Seat 13 by
a 60% vote and User/Non-Contracted Party Council elects Seat 14 by a 60%
vote; BUT both seats 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
the appointed representatives to one of the GNSO user stakeholder
groups.

         

        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. 
                b.      All Stakeholder Groups must have rules and
processes in place that make it possible for any and all people and
organizations eligible for the Stakeholder Group to join, participate
and be heard regardless of their policy viewpoints.