RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q10. Section 3.6: Restriction on who can be elected to a board seat. (13 or 14)

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

I wanted to explain a bit more the concern I expressed on the call
regarding which Board seat is to be filled by which House.  As IPC
responded to Denise Michel in November 2008:  
 
Finally, I will take this opportunity to repeat IPC's recommendation,
contained in its September 18 submission (and detailed in previous
correspondence), that whenever the new system is brought into force, the
first election be held within the non-contracted parties House.  The
simple reason for this is that, at present, both seats #13 and 14 are
held by persons who are employed by, act as agent for, or receive
compensation from an ICANN-accredited registry or registrar.  Thus,
under the "exclusivity language," as your memo refers to it, the first
vacancy would have to be filled by a person who did not fit this
description.  It is more appropriate for the non-contracted parties
House to make that choice.   
 
I think the language Jon wants to remove is the "exclusivity language"
as labeled by Denise.  If that were done, the point above would remain
valid:  given the status quo, under which the contracted parties hold
effective veto power over GNSO Council selection of Board members, the
non-contracted parties should have the opportunity to fill the first
vacancy that arises after the new Council is seated.  If this principle
were agreed to (and written into the by-laws or a transition article),
then I would recommend to IPC that we accept the elimination of the
"exclusivity language."  Otherwise, I think as a matter of principle we
would be unable to agree to remove language that undermines the status
quo, i.e., contracted party control over GNSO Council board selections.
I also agree with Chuck that the best reading of the last phrase would
be that a person cannot serve simultaneously on the Council and the
Board, and if that is not already clear elsewhere in the By-laws, then
it should be explicitly stated here.  
 
Steve Metalitz
________________________________

From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 4:15 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Margie Milam; Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q10. Section 3.6: Restriction on who can
be elected to a board seat. (13 or 14)



I agree with Chuck.  In addition, the draft Bylaw actually made the
second part of the criteria less clear than what appeared in the Final
Report from the working group.  The original recommendation included
parallel criteria: 

 

"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."

 

Somehow, that parallel criteria became more one-sided in the draft Bylaw
recently circulated:

 

"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."

 

I'm not even sure what the second part means.  Chuck has one
interpretation below, but the language is less than clear.  Regardless,
both parts should be deleted.

 

For your reference, the following is the Registrar view on this topic:

 

The RC has concerns with the criteria related to the election of Board
Seats 13 and 14, which would prohibit both seats from being held by
someone affiliated with a registry or registrar or both seats being held
by representatives to one of the user/non-contracted party groups.  The
rationale for the criteria only applied when the entire Council was
electing both candidates, and there was a sense that there should be
protection against a voting block that could elect both directors.
However, once the recommendation changed to be that each house would
elect one director, the need for the criteria no longer was necessary or
helpful. Each voting house will ensure that the two directors come from
a diverse viewpoint.

 

If the criteria are included, it could result in gaming by either house
by electing someone who might have nominal contacts with one interest
group, but really represents another.

Moreover, it also could result in a situation that would hurt the ICANN
Board by disqualifying stellar candidates.  For example, under the
drafted criteria, Bruce Tonkin and Vint Cerf could not serve in seats 13
and 14 (as both Melbourne IT and Google are accredited registrars).
Indeed, Vint Cerf and Bill Gates both could not serve in such capacities
(Microsoft also is an accredited registrar). As there is no longer need
for the criteria, and in light of the risk that the criteria may be
gamed and could potentially disqualify outstanding candidates, the RC
suggests that the criteria be deleted. Specifically, the Contracted
Parties House should elect Seat 13 by a 60% vote and User/Non-Contracted
Party House should elect Seat 14 by a 60% vote without reference to
Criteria.  

 

Thanks.

 

Jon

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 5:17 PM
To: Margie Milam; Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q10. Section 3.6: Restriction on who can
be elected to a board seat. (13 or 14)

 

 

Thanks Avri and Margie for getting this thread started.  I will try to

move forward a little further. To make it easier to see the context of

my comments, I inserted them below.

 

Chuck 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 

> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Margie Milam

> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 1:01 PM

> To: Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx

> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q10. Section 3.6: Restriction 

> on who can be elected to a board seat. (13 or 14)

> 

> 

> Dear All,

> 

> To assist your discussions on these questions, I thought it 

> would be useful to provide the current proposed language on 

> the table related to these questions.

> 

> Best Regards,

> 

> Margie Milam

> Senior Policy Counselor

> ICANN

> ______________________________________________________________

> _________________________________________________

> 

> Currently Proposed Revisions:

> 

> 6. Each of the two GNSO Houses, as described in Section 3(8) 

> of this Article (link TBD), shall make a selection to fill 

> one of two ICANN Board seats, as outlined below, by written 

> ballot or by action at a meeting; any such selection must 

> have affirmative votes comprising 60% of all the respective 

> voting house members: 

>  

> a.  the Contracted Party & Suppliers House shall select Seat 

> 13; and b.  the Users & Providers House shall select Seat 14. 

> 

> 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

 

Chuck: I support deletion of this requirement as I stated in our call

yesterday.  Jon did a good job of explaining how this language was a

legacy from when we were considering a different approach for electing

Board reps.  I believe that each house should be able to elect whoever

they believe is most qualified as long as Bylaws Board qualifications

are met.  In my opinion, and I would be very surprised if it wasn't the

opinion of most, the two present GNSO-elected Directors are outstanding,

but they would have been ineligble if this requirement was in place. 

 

> 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.

 

Chuck: As I shared in our call yesterday, if our intent is to preclude

anyone from serving on the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board at the same

time, I support that intent but think we should say that more clearly;

for example, "An individual may not serve simultaneously as a GNSO

Councilor and an ICANN Board member."  The way the requirement is

presently worded, it would seem to prevent a current GNSO Councilor from

being elected to a Board seat; under my suggested wording, it would be

okay if that happened as long as the individual resigned his/her

position on the GNSO Council. Note that this is exactly what happened

when we elected Bruce to the Board seat.

 

>   Notification of the Board seat selections 

> shall be given by the GNSO Chair in writing to the ICANN 

> Secretary, consistent with Article VI, Sections 8(4) and 12(1).

> ______________________________________________________________

> ________________________________________________

> 

> 

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 

> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria

> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 9:42 PM

> To: Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx

> Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q10. Section 3.6: Restriction on 

> who can be elected to a board seat. (13 or 14)

> 

> 

> 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?

> 

> 

> 

> 

>