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

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

We could simply add a threshold for vice chair elections that requires a
simple majority of both SGs.  Would that be acceptable?

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck 
> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 4:23 PM
> To: 'Tim Ruiz'; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q18 on thresholds
> 
> 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'
> > 
> > 
> >