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

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

Tim,

I don't think the catch-all threshold works for vice chair elections
because they are elected by each house separately, but this should still
be easy to deal with.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 3:09 PM
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q18 on thresholds
> 
> 
> 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'
> 
> 
>