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

["David W. Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx>]

I agree.
David

At 09:05 AM 5/2/2009, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 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>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>mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: 
> <http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php>http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social 
> Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
> <http://ssrn.com/author=437584>http://ssrn.com/author=437584
> >>> "Gomes, Chuck" 
> <<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>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>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>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>owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:51 AM
> > > > To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>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>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06676.html
> >
> > >
> >
> >
David W. Maher
Senior Vice President - Law & Policy
.ORG, The Public Interest Registry
1775 Wiehle Ave, #200
Reston, VA 20190  USA
(v) +1-312-876-8055
(f)  +1-312-876-7934
http://www.pir.org

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential 
and may be protected by legal privilege. If you 
are not the intended recipient, be aware that any 
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this 
e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you 
have received this e-mail in error, please notify 
us immediately by returning it to the sender and 
deleting this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.