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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Let's be absolutely clear that the contracted parties do not have veto
power under the current Council voting  procedures.  The contracted
parties have the same number of votes as the noncontracted parties, no
more, no less.  The election of a Board member under our current system
only requires a simple majority vote so it is simply wrong to suggest
that the contracted parties have a veto power.  If the noncontracted
parties nominated a candidate that was supported by all noncontracted
parties  and two of the three NCAs, that person could have been elected
and the contracted parties could have done nothing to change that.
 
In reality, what happened in the last Board seat election is that we
unanimously elected Rita.  The fact that Rita was provided was legal
support to a new registry operator has not in my opinion made her favor
contracted or noncontracted parties in her service as a director.  The
same would apply to Bruce.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@xxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 2:09 PM
        To: Nevett, Jonathon; 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 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?

        > 

        > 

        > 

        > 

        >