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

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

I am okay with that.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 4:32 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q18 on thresholds
> 
> 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'
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> 
>