RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q18 on thresholds

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

My views:

Q18     - All voting thresholds should be in the Bylaws regardless of
what happens with regard to the PDP.
        - There should be a catch-all threshold requiring a simple
majority vote of both houses.
        - Unless we think that chair elections should only require a
simple majority of both houses, then we should have a threshold chair
elections.
        - For vice chair elections that will occur within each house
separately, we might want to require a simple majority of both SGs and
we might want to add a requirement that the chair and vice chair cannot
come from the same SG.  This should be included with the other
thresholds.

Q19     - I believe that 'within scope' should be defined.  One
alternative is to define 'in scope' as being 'within ICANN's and the
GNSO's missions'.  I think this would probably be okay, but I also might
be able to live with 'determined by legal counsel in the issues report'.
My preference would be the former.

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 1:55 AM
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q18 on thresholds
> 
> 
> 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'
>