<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Retry -- Draft #2 of Board Report Pls reply by Midnight PDT
- To: "Robert Hoggarth" <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Retry -- Draft #2 of Board Report Pls reply by Midnight PDT
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:27:49 -0400
I meant to share my comments with the entire group. Sorry.
Chuck
________________________________
From: Robert Hoggarth [mailto:robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 1:11 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Retry -- Draft #2 of Board Report Pls
reply by Midnight PDT
Chuck,
Not sure if you intended to reply only to me or to the larger group. I
was only addressee of your message. Underlined text in 4.g. (Removal of Nom Com
Appointees) was left over from when I took out the red font and I missed the
underline. Good eye! Removing it in final form ... I think rest of your
comments merit sharing with entire group ....
One other quick observation. Be careful with number designations from
the email cut and paste. For some reason the email formats play havoc with
paragraph numbering when you cut and paste word documents into them. I
experienced the same thing whenever Jon N would send around his drafts. As I
look below, the designations are all off (e.g., what you refer to as 2.4 is
really 4. d. Sorry about the technical difficulties you are experiencing.
Rob
On 7/25/08 9:49 PM, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rob,
For principle B, 'binding policy' is still not defined;
Milton's suggested change will fix this: "Principle B should be clarified as
Chuck Gomes suggested: "Council recommendation of policy requiring 2/3 Board
vote to reject should have at least one vote of support from at least 3 of the
4 stakeholder groups.""
Principle C is still inconsistent with Sections a & b. I don't
see how it is possible for both the House and the Board to determine the # of
reps on the Council. Either the House determines it and the Board simply
approves it or the Board does it after receiving input from the House. My
understanding is that most of us agreed on the latter. If anyone does not
support that, they can so state and submit a statement. As long as there are
no more than two who disagree, I think Sections a & b should stay as is. As
far as Principle C goes, there are several options: 1) delete it as Milton, Jon
& I suggested; 2) change it to something like "Each house will provide input to
the Board regarding how many Council seats it will have"; 3) change it to some
other formulation that Philip can live with but that is not different than a &
b.
I can live with the red text in b but I still do not think the
wording is the best. In my opinion the house is made up some specified number
of reps from the two stakeholder groups plus a nomcom appointee. The
stakeholder groups are composed of all 'interested parties'. The composition
being discussed really relates to the stakeholder groups not the house so I
don't think that the sentence really fits here. The goal of openness to all
interested parties is one that relates to the PDP and that will be covered
elsewhere, but if there is a desire to make a point in this regard, a principle
could be added to that effect.
I believe that 2.4 is red because we are no sure whether it
even needs to be there, not because there is any disagreement on the point. It
probably will be irrelevant but I don't think it does any harm.
Why is 2.7 underlined? Was that done by the tracking function?
It looks like it except for the fact that I don't think any changes were made
from version 1.
Chuck
________________________________
From: Robert Hoggarth
[mailto:robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 11:56 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Retry -- Draft #2 of
Board Report Pls reply by Midnight PDT
Importance: High
Give this a try Chuck:
Also if you have an alternate gmail , yahoo or hotmail
account we could try sending it there.
RobH
Report To ICANN Board of Directors
From Working Group On GNSO Council Restructuring
25 July 2008
On 26 June 2008 the ICANN Board of Directors endorsed
the recommendations of the Board Governance Committee's (BGC) GNSO Review
Working Group, with the exception of the BGC's recommendation regarding GNSO
Council restructuring. The Board asked the GNSO to convene a small working
group on Council restructuring and said that the group "should reach consensus
and submit a consensus recommendation on Council restructuring by no later
than 25 July 2008 for consideration by the ICANN Board as soon as possible."
(see ICANN Board Resolution 2008.06.26.13,
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm - _Toc76113182
<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182> )
The working group convened on 4 July 2008 and has
deliberated exhaustively via email and extensively during six conference call
meetings between that date and today in an effort to develop a consensus
recommendation for Board consideration. As directed by the Board, the group
has consisted of one representative from the current NomCom appointees, one
member from each GNSO constituency and one member from each liaison-appointing
advisory committee. The group members include:
Avri Doria / Nominating Committee Appointee
representative
Chuck Gomes / gTLD Registries Constituency
representative
Alan Greenberg / At-Large Advisory Committee
representative
Tony Holmes / Internet Service and Connection Providers
Constituency representative
Steve Metalitz / Intellectual Property Constituency
representative
Milton Mueller / Non-Commercial Users Constituency
representative
Jonathon Nevett / Registrar Constituency representative
Philip Sheppard / Commercial and Business Users
Constituency representative
Bertrand de La Chapelle / Governmental Advisory
Committee
Three ICANN staff members, Glen De Saint Gery, Robert
Hoggarth and Denise Michel also acted as secretariat, moderator and observer
to the group respectively during its deliberations.
The group members agreed at their first meeting that
the goal of the group effort should be 100% approval or acquiescence to any
final decision and operated consistently with that goal in mind throughout
their deliberations. The deliberations covered a wide range and variety of
concepts, ideas and potential sources for compromise and ultimate consensus.
In the end, the group has reached consensus, as
defined above, on a number of fundamental concepts and principles regarding
the future composition and operation of the GNSO Council. Where possible, the
group also made the effort and achieved agreement on specific operational
details that they viewed as critical to the overall concepts.
Areas of agreement include (1) the overall structure of
the new council and its composition and (2) the voting mechanisms and
thresholds for decisions regarding the election of GNSO Council leaders and
Board representatives and the specific decision points that are present in the
current GNSO Policy Development Process - including such matters as initiating
and approval of a PDP, among others. Those consensus concepts, principles and
details are provided in Attachment A to this report.
There were also a number of areas where the group did
not reach consensus because there was not sufficient time to complete the work
or because there were fundamental differences in views that could not be
overcome. The group agreed that in providing this report that individual
members would have the opportunity to provide separate statements to share
those concerns with the Board. Those statements are provided in Attachment B
to this report.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert L. Hoggarth.
Senior Policy Director, ICANN
Attachment A
Consensus GNSO Council Restructure Proposal "Snapshot"
Drafted To Accompany Report To ICANN Board of Directors
From The Working Group On GNSO Council Restructuring
25 July 2008
General Principles of Agreement:
A. No single stakeholder group should have a veto for
any policy vote.
B. Council recommendation of binding policy should
have at least one vote of support from at least 3 of the 4 stakeholder groups
C. Each House will determine its own composition.
D. Equal number of votes between registries and
registrars.
E. Equal number of votes between commercial and
non-commercial users.
Specific Proposals:
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 - The GNSO Council would be
comprised of two voting houses
a. A Contracted Party House (descriptive term only)
- 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.
b. A Non-Contracted Party/User House (descriptive
term only) - 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. The
composition of this house would be open to membership of all interested
parties (subject to section 6) that use or provide services for the Internet,
with the obvious exclusion of the contracted parties referenced in 2.a.i. and
should explicitly not be restricted to domain registrants as recommended by
the BGC. This is in line with the current ICANN By-Laws.
c. One (1) Council-level Non-Voting Nominating
Committee Appointee
1. Leadership
2.
1. 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
2. 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.
3. Voting Thresholds
4.
1. Create an Issues Report (currently 25%
of vote of Council)- either greater than 25% vote of both houses or simple
majority of one house
2. 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
3. Initiate a PDP not within Scope of the
GNSO per ICANN Bylaws and advice of ICANN GC (currently >66% of vote of
Council) - greater than 75% vote of one house and a simple majority of the
other
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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
7. Removal of Nominating Committee
Appointees for Cause subject to ICANN Board Approval (currently 75% of
Council)
i. At
least 75% of User/NCP House to remove Nominating Committee appointee on
User/NCP House
ii. At
least 75% of Contracted Parties House to remove Nominating Committee appointee
on Contracted Parties House
iii. At
least 75% of both voting houses to remove the Council-level Nominating
Committee appointee
1. All other GNSO Business (other than
Board elections) - simple majority of both voting houses
1. Board Elections
Election of Board Seats 13 & 14 at the end of the
current terms (currently simple majority vote of Council)
Board Elections -- Contracted Parties House elects
Seat 13 by a 60% vote and User/Non-Contracted Party House 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.
1. Representation
2.
1. All four stakeholder groups must
strive to fulfill pre-established objective criteria regarding broadening
outreach and deepening participation from a diverse range of participants.
2. 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.
Attachment B
Separate Statements of Working Group Members Drafted
To Accompany Report To ICANN Board of Directors
From Working Group On GNSO Council Restructuring
25 July 2008
To be cut and pasted in final document .........
The group member and group they are representing will
be identified and comments will be pasted below
On 7/25/08 8:52 PM, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I need some help. I cannot open the file in a
readable format. The problem is undoubtedly related to the fact that IE7 was
installed on my laptop today. Can someone cut and paste at least the Appendix
into an email for me.
Chuck
________________________________
From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert Hoggarth
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:43 PM
To: Robert Hoggarth; Glen de Saint
Géry; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] Retry --
Draft #2 of Board Report Pls reply by Midnight PDT
My sincere apologies. Let me try this
again ........
All previous comments apply.
RobH
On 7/25/08 6:48 PM, "Robert Hoggarth"
<robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All:
Draft # 2 attached with notable
points set forth below in general order as they appear (or don't appear) in
the document. One of my challenges this afternoon was my inability to get
track changes operational so I have itemized a number of the changes to the
document below with explanations for making (or not making a change). All
changes refer to the snapshot document (Attachment A)
1. Principles moved to top of
snapshot document (Attachment A).
2. Three edits to Principle B -
To address part of Chuck's concern I added the words "Council recommendation
of" to the front of the principle. Steve suggested that language and since a
current supermajority vote of the Council has the effect of converting the
action to a Council "recommendation" (see ICANN By laws Annex A, number 12)
it seemed a reasonable approach. Second, I inserted Jon's "at least"
language suggestion just before "3 of 4" because it clarified the principle
without changing its meaning. Third, I spelled out SGs. If those are not
acceptable changes we'll have to delete the principle for lack of consensus.
3. For Principle C the answer to
the extensive dialogue would seem to be to substitute the word "composition"
for "total number of seats." I hope that wording significantly reduces the
potential contradiction with Item 2. If that is not an appropriate
compromise I think we'll just have to delete the principle for lack of
consensus.
4. I cleaned up section 2 and 5
per Alan's suggestions.
5. To address concerns w/respect
to the naming of the houses in Section 2, I changed the characterization of
the name of each house to a descriptive term, and even flipped the words in
the descriptive term for the second house. I substituted out the red text
that I had drafted for the text that Alan drafted and made a slight
modification of the language to partly address Chuck's concerns. Alan and
Chuck particularly should examine that change.
6. Item 2.c. I added the term
"Nonvoting" to that section. I did not make the change with respect to
non-voting that Alan suggested in Section 2.b. because I understood that the
Nomcom appointees in each house were voting members. I think it would be
problematic at this stage to do any additional wordsmithing on that specific
topic, but clarification is welcome.
7. Based on your email dialogue,
item 3.a. Regarding Council leadership is still there.
8. Cleaned up "consistently
inconsistent" parentheses in Item 4.
9. Kept item 4.g. - no longer
red and converted item 4.d (Task Force) to red. If anyone challenges 4.d.
its out .
10. I added Steve's suggested
parenthetical text "(other than Board elections)" to Item 4 h
I also welcome any additional typo
catches. I did leave one just to make sure everyone reads the whole document.
Given the late hour, I think if anyone
proposes a substantive challenge to any of the principles as drafted they
will need to be deleted for lack of consensus. If anyone offers any more
substantive challenges they will also have to be deleted from the document.
Its just not possible to keep everyone on-line and awake at the same time.
You have all made some tremendous
progress on this effort in a very short period of time, but we have to cut
this off around Midnight PDT tonight. That will give me time to append
statements and still beat the "international date line" deadline. :-) Thank
you all for continued patience and generally good humor at this 11th hour.
RobH
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|