ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-consensus-wg]


<<< 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 >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy