Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] List of questions sent out to list after phone call on 090505

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I asked Raimundo about how he wanted to handle sending the issues to the
Board/SIC.  As he is now a subscriber to this list, he indicate that he
was comfortable with reading the list and seeing both the questions and
the context/discussion we add to it on the list.  In this way we do not
need to negotiate text on the questions we can all agree to.  I tried to
be both brief and  neutral in posing the questions, so the context will
come from the on-list discussion.

As the next SIC meeting is next week, it would be helpful if we could
try and terminate our discussion on this set of questions by the end of
the weekend.   It is not that I am saying 'we will never discuss again,'
but rather that any input that might help the SIC in answering the
questions posed to them, and in helping Raimondo understand where we are
in the work should have been sent to the list by then.

Thanks
a.


On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 23:49 -0400, Avri Doria wrote:
> The following is the compiled list of questions sent out as seperate
> emails for reference sake.
> 
> a.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Question for the Board SIC: Is the number of representatives to be
> included from each of the Stakeholder Groups open for discussion?
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> The Board's recommendation included the names of both stakeholder groups
> and the two houses that are currently being used. 
> 
> Question to Board/SIC: Are names open to change and if so by whom and
> under what conditions?
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> 
>