Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] RE: Draft Revisions Bylaws - GNSO Restructure

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

As an initial comment, I am in strong agreement with point III and the fact
that Council seats should be allocated by SG and not by Constituency under
the new GNSO structure.

Thanks,

Stéphane


Le 01/05/09 22:19, « Mary Wong » <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> In light of the Restructuring DT call next week, the NCUC would like to
> respond to some of the suggested Bylaw changes made by the BC, IPC and ISPC
> that were circulated on 21 April 2009, as follows:
>  
> I. The proposed revision to the Bylaws by the BC, IPC & ISPC in relation to
> the composition of the non-contracting house is untenable for the following
> reasons:
>  
> (1) A consensus working group, which representatives from these Constituencies
> participated in, has already agreed on a carefully structured balance between
> contracting and non-contracting houses. The same group has also agreed on
> parity between the two parts of each house (i.e. registries and
> registrars/commercial and noncommercial). Parity was also part of the BGC
> recommendations, and is reflected in both the BGC WG report of February 3,
> 2008 (Section 5.3) and the Summary of Board Actions & GNSO Implementations
> document of November 1, 2008 (updated 23 January 2009) (Recommendation #4
> concerning the GNSO Council in Appendix A, on page 13.)
>  
> (2) At best, the current proposal flies in the face of these reports and the
> Board's endorsement of the parity principle; at worst, it represents a bad
> faith attempt to re-open a fundamental principle that the Board and the
> community have discussed and agreed upon.
>  
> II. The proposal to include the entire At Large, which includes commercial as
> well as noncommercial stakeholders, in the new Noncommercial Stakeholders
> Group (NCSG) seems to be another attempt to dilute or undermine parity and
> balance in the GNSO.
>  
> This has little to do with encouraging or enabling individual membership and
> participation (which is already possible and should continue in the new GNSO.)
> Renaming only the NCSG to include "Individuals" suggests that there is no home
> anywhere else within the GNSO for them, which would exclude those individuals
> who have a commercial interest in DNS policy (e.g. domainers, consultants,
> even individual legal practitioners.) To the extent that the restructured GNSO
> is to facilitate increased and broad-based individual membership and
> participation, it makes far more sense for both commercial and noncommercial
> SGs to allow individual membership.
>  
> III. Council seats should not be linked directly to Constituencies rather than
> SGs, 
>  
> This arrangement would not only create scalability problems (and potentially
> further Board action on restructuring within a very short period of time), it
> goes against the intention expressed in (among others) the BGC WG report that
> the Constituency structure needs to adapt in light of the move to (inter alia)
> a working group model, and be flexible and dynamic. Charter proposals for the
> NCSG are now before the Board. Determining representation structures within a
> noncommercial framework should not be the province of commercial stakeholders,
> who have an obvious conflict of interest in relation to the proposals
> addressed in this submission.
>  
> Best regards,
> Mary (on behalf of the NCUC)
>  
>  
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Franklin Pierce Law Center
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
> http://ssrn.com/author=437584
> 
>>>> >>> "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 4/21/2009 3:27 PM >>>
> I took up Avri's suggestion and prepared a red-line version of Philip's
> document that will hopefully facilitate our discussion on the Bylaws
> changes needed for Council restructure.
> 
> Thanks Philip for all the time you put into this.
> 
> Chuck 
> 
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> > [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:23 AM
>> > To: Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> > Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] RE: Draft Revisions Bylaws - GNSO
>> > Restructure
>> > 
>> > 
>> > (i have moved this discussion to the restructuring list, as
>> > that includes all council members as well as those others
>> > from the constituencies who are acting as subs or additions from the
>> > constituencies)
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Hi,
>> > 
>> > I tend to think we should just talk through each of the
>> > proposed changes in order finding out which ones have
>> > consensus, and then precede to further discuss the ones,
>> > assuming there are some, that do not have consensus.
>> > 
>> > It might be good for other proposed stakeholder groups to
>> > also redline the proposed by-laws, perhaps starting from
>> > Philip's changes, so that we have a complete set of proposed changes.
>> > 
>> > As soon as we get a meeting scheduled for the restructuring
>> > phone call, we should put this as the first item on the agenda.
>> > 
>> > a.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 11:03 -0400, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>> > > Thanks for the quick response.  In my opinion, I think it would be
>>> > > helpful to clearly identify any deviances from the Board approved
>>> > > recommendations and that we should handle those separately from the
>>> > > rest of the text.
>>> > > 
>>> > > Chuck
>>> > > 
>>>> > > > -----Original Message-----
>>>> > > > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> > > > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
>>>> > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:51 AM
>>>> > > > To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> > > > Subject: RE: [council] Draft Revisions Bylaws - GNSO Restructure
>>>> > > > 
>>>> > > > 
>>>> > > > 
>>>> > > > One is certainly - as the Board recommendations were
>> > predicated on 
>>>> > > > events that have not come to pass.
>>>> > > > 
>>>> > > > 
>>> > > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > the messages refered to and the edit can be foiund in:
>> > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06676.html
>> > 
>>> > > 
>> > 
>> > 
>