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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Why not just add that one vice chair is elected from each house to
establish that fact in the bylaws. Then leave the actual process and
threshold to the SGs in each houst to sort out in the SG charter.

Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q18 on thresholds
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, May 14, 2009 3:23 pm
To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
<gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>


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'
> > 
> > 
> >