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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Q18 - The bylaws should contain all thresholds using language as close
to that in the WG's final report as possible. For Vice Chair, the
fact that each house selects a chair and related conditions would
be included. The percentage required would fall under the 
catch-all threshold.

It seems a number of these issues are simply rehashes of what has
already been agreed to and approved by the Board. I suggest that
Staff and all of us refer to it more comprehensively in editing
the bylaws, and avoid rehashing resolved issues.

Q19 - I think it's pretty clear what is meant by scope in this 
context, but I have no problem with defining it further either
as suggested below or as Chuck has suggested.

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q18 on thresholds
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, May 13, 2009 12:55 am
To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx


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’