[gnso-restruc-dt] List of questions - with notes of explanation

["Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>]

 Avri,
I've added a couple of background notes.
Hope these help with understanding of the issues
Philip
----------------------------------------


Q1:  In Section 3.1.d NCSG changes recommended by CSG

A change was proposed changing from 6 NCSG representative to 3 NCSG
representatives?

Specifically change:

d. six representatives selected from the Non-Commercial & Individual
Stakeholder Group; and

to 

d. three representatives selected from the Non-Commercial & Individual
Stakeholder Group; and

Rationale
This is a request by the BC, IPS and ISPCP. This issue is that the GNSO 
restructuring
compromise of July 2008 was contingent on the replacement of the existing NCUC 
with a
Non-Commercial and Individuals Stakeholder Group with the breadth, 
comprehensiveness and
representativeness of the other three SGs. The creation of a Non-Commercial and 
Individuals
Stakeholder Group with 6 seats on Council (a 100% increase from historic 
levels) was also
contingent on a deep involvement from the at-large organisation in order to 
benefit from the
years of work in building up the ALSs and RALOs as a credible way to solicit 
the input of
individuals into GNSO policy making. The IPS and ISPCP have yet to see evidence 
that this
change has ocurred.

 
Question for the Board SIC: Does the Board believe this change has occurred?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q2: Names


In several CSG proposed changes, a change of name was proposed.  The
Proposed changes were:

- in section 3.1.d at the Stakeholder level: change the name of the Non
commercial SG to the Noncommercial and Individual SG.

- in section 3.3 a&b: at the House level 
  - from Non Contracted Party House to Users and Providers House
  - from Contracted Party to Contracted Parties and Suppiers.

Rationale
The Users House finds it odd to be known in the negative - as what they are not.

Question to Board/SIC: Was there any consultation of the House as to how they 
wish to be
known?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q3. In Section 3 1.e:  Mechanism for selecting house for NCAs

We need to describe exactly how the Nomcom Appointees (NCAs) are to be
assigned to a house.

There have been several methods suggested including but not restricted
to the following:
  -  Houses Pick (the current text in the by-laws doc)
  -  Nomcom selects specifically for each house
  -  NCA choose among themselves

One method has to be chosen and described in sufficient detail in the
proper place.

It has additionally been asked, whether this needs to be described in
the by-laws or is an issue that could be documented in Council Rules and
Procedures (related to a larger issue of differentiating between things
that in the by-Laws and things that can be left to Rules and Procedures
documents.  This larger issue is related separately in Question 7)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q4. In Section 3.1: Question of constituency role

During the meeting it appeared clear that participants agreed with
deleting the following from the recommends changes to the by-Laws in
section 3.1:

subject to the provision that each Board-recognized Constituency shall
be allocated a minimum of one seat on the GNSO Council.


A pending discussion was: what does it mean to be a constituency if a
constituency does not have an automatic seat on the council?  In the
meeting it was suggested that constituencies provided an organized way
for people with similar concerns to participate in the process and in
the SGs.  

Does this need to be described somewhere in the By-Laws?

The question also remains on whether any considerations are required
within the By-Laws on the relationship between Constituencies and the
Stakeholder groups in order to implement the Board's recommendations for
increased participation and representation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q5. In Section 3.1: Geographic distribution SG council members

a) A change was proposed that allowed:

-  a Non Contracted Party SG to appoint up to 4 (increased from 3) out
of 6 council members from one geographic regions

Background
This follows the same ratio as that applying to the other SGs.


Should the change be retained?

b) A general question was also asked about the clause allowing even
these limits to be waived:

- for the Non Contracted Parties in:

except in cases where a Stakeholder Group can demonstrate that there are
no eligible and available member representatives from four different
regions. 

- for the Contracted Parties

except in cases where a Stakeholder Group can demonstrate that there are
no eligible and available member representatives from four different
regions. 


Does this languages need to be changed? 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q6. In section 3.2: Special circumstance on term limits to support
geographic diversity

An edit was made to change this from requiring both house to give
majority approval to requiring just the appropriate house's approval.

Rationale
Decisions that can be refferred down to the lowest level are consistent with 
ICANN's
bottom-up ethos.

Q: Should this change be retained?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q7. General question: By-Laws versus Rules & Procedures

To what extent does the contractual nature of Policy Decisions require
that rules be in the by-Laws?  To what extent can flexibility be
obtained by moving some items to Rules & Procedures.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q8. Section 3.3 : Locality of rules and Procedure

For items that can me moved to  Rules and Procedures, which ones need to
be part of Council Rules and Procedures and which ones can be House
specific Rules and Procedures?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q9. Section 3.6 a & b: 13 and 14 switch

A proposal was made that seat 13 be assigned to the Non-Contracted
Parties House and that seat 14 be assigned to the Contracted Parties
house.

Rationale
The Users House woud like to select the first avaliable Board seat to 
compensate for the
current double -voting system.

Q: Should this change be made?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q10. Section 3.6: Restriction on who can be elected to a board seat.

It was recommended that the following paragraph be deleted:

Both seats shall not be held by individuals who are employed by, an
agent of, or receive any compensation from an ICANN-accredited registry
or registrar nor shall both seats be held by individuals who are the
elected or appointed representatives to one of the four GNSO Stakeholder
Groups or any Constituency

It was noted that this should probably be changed into 2 sentence.  

- The first concerning employment in ICANN accredited registrars of
registries.  
- The second concerning being simultaneously elected into seat 13 or 14
and being a Stakeholder representative in the GNSO  council.


What is the status of this deletion?