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

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

Thanks Jon.  I would like to see responses to my suggestion for
initiating an out-of-scope PDP.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Nevett, Jonathon [mailto:jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:25 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] More Updated Draft
        
        

        Chuck:

         

        I found two references to "Council" that I changed to "House"
and changed "three groups" to "four stakeholder groups."  As Alan
pointed out, the current Bylaws reference more than 66%.  As there is no
difference between 2/3rds majority and more than 66%, I suggest that we
keep that as is.

         

        I am ok removing 4d if others agree.  I'm also ok leaving it as
is.

         

        I'll hold off sending out the new draft to see if there are
other comments.

         

        Thanks.

         

        Jon

        
________________________________


        From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:02 AM
        To: Nevett, Jonathon; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] More Updated Draft

         

        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.