[gnso-restruc-dt] Q18 on thresholds

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Article XX, Section 5, Transition Article, Item 11


Item 11 proposed changes from the document :


11. In the absence of further action by the Board to modify or amend  
Annex A to these Bylaws and/or this Transition Article XX, Section 5,  
the newly seated GNSO Council will utilize the following voting  
thresholds for all policy development activity conducted commencing  
with the ICANN meeting in June 2009:
a.  Create an Issues Report:  requires more than 25% vote of both  
houses or majority of one house;
b.  Initiate a PDP Within Scope:  requires more than 33% vote of both  
houses or more than 66% vote of one house;
c.  Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope:  requires a vote of more than 75%  
of one house and a majority of the other house (“Super Majority”);
d.  Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a Super Majority: requires a  
majority of both houses and further requires that one representative  
of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports;
e. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a Super Majority:  requires  
greater than 75% majority in one house and majority in the other house.

Q18: It is understood that the Legal Counsel and Policy Staff are  
preparing a new set of recommended changes to the voting threshold.   
Some of the pending questions are.

·      Should we put the threshold issue on hold until information is  
provided from Staff regarding thresholds related to the PDP in Annex A?
·

·      Should all voting thresholds, and not just those related to PDP  
etc,  be in the Bylaws?
·      Should the thresholds include a catch-all threshold as  
originally recommended by the GNSO such as “All other issues: requires  
a simple majority of both houses.”?
·      Should the thresholds include requirements for electing chair  
and vice chairs?  (e.g., 60% of both houses for chair and 69% of the  
applicable house for vice chair) as recommended by the GNSO 30 day WG

Q19.  ‘within scope’ is used within the thresholds.  Should this be  
defined in the the by-laws.?
·      Alternative should a phrase such as ‘within scope as determined  
by legal counsel in the issues report” be used as opposed to simply  
‘within scope’