Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Notes from Restructure meeting of 25 May

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Yes, also at the last meeting, Raimundo gave us an update and included  
the information that the Board at its Vienna retreat empowered the SIC  
to respond to the questions.
A possible exception, not specifically mentioned by Raimundo, being  
the issue of house voting on the board seats individually, which they  
have not decided on as a board yet, and the derivative issue of  
changing of the order in which houses select the seats (Q9).  While  
this is a critical issue I am not sure, however, that it is a gating  
issue for seating the new council in Seoul as the election process  
does not begin until early 2010.  I do not know the Board's plans  
regarding this issue, but I did send a request to the Secretary of the  
Board asking for confirmation of the status and received confirmation  
that the issue had not yet been decided.  Of course once the new  
council is seated, the procedure currently in the By-laws would be  
invalid and thus the by-laws do need to be changed to deal with this  
issue before any Board seat election could take place.
Also it was pointed out that although the SIC meets on Tuesday June 2,  
they do sometimes complete decisions via email, so the response  
schedule from the SIC is  not tightly coupled to their meeting schedule.
Thanks

a.



On 28 May 2009, at 09:54, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> My understanding is that the SIC is meeting on June 2nd and my hope is
> that we will receive answers to our questions after that meeting.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Metalitz,  
> > Steven
> > Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:41 AM
> > To: Avri Doria; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Notes from Restructure meeting
> > of 25 May
> >
> >
> > Avri, thanks for laying out the timetable below, which is
> > very useful to know.  I feel constrained to point out,
> > though, that Q1 (regarding seats allocated to the NCSG) is a
> > threshold question from the IPC's viewpoint, and I can't see
> > IPC representatives to the Council being in a position to
> > support any package of by-laws amendments until that issue is
> > resolved.
> >
> > Your chart correctly points out that this issue is "waiting
> > on Board determination."  So far, the only output we have
> > seen from the Board is Denise's note of a week ago, which
> > stated:  "The Board approved a resolution that: noted that
> > the proposed SG charters require revisions to  ensure
> > equitable participation and representation by new
> > constituencies;  directed the Board's Structural Improvements
> > Committee
> > (SIC) and ICANN Staff  to propose changes to the SG charters
> > to make them consistent with the Board's  stated objectives;
> > and directed the SIC to post the revised charters, and an
> > explanatory memorandum, for GNSO consultation and public
> > comment." The text of the resolution still has not been made public.
> >
> > Assuming that the issue posed by Q1 was not resolved at last
> > week's Board meeting, it may be that it will be addressed in
> > the proposed changes now being prepared by SIC and the staff.
> > Those proposed changes are then to be posted for GNSO
> > consultation and public comment.  Perhaps staff could provide
> > an update on the status of these proposals, when they are
> > expected to be posted, and the likely duration of the public
> > comment period, so that we can make a more realistic
> > appraisal of the timetable for by-laws revisions.
> >
> > Alternatively, perhaps the Board intends to resolve this
> > issue at its next meeting in Sydney.  If so it would be
> > useful to know that.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 10:57 AM
> > To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Notes from Restructure meeting of 25 May
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Report from the Restructuring Meeting.
> >
> > 1. Schedule was reviewed.
> >
> > Some of the data points in the discussion (some exact dates
> > need to be firmed up):
> >
> > a. It is a firm goal, endorsed by the Board, that the new
> > council be seated at the Seoul Meeting.
> > b. In order for council members to have travel arrangements
> > it will be necessary for them to be elected by 8 September if
> > not a week earlier (I have asked for official notification of
> > traveller notification date).
> > c. Since it is assumed to take 3-4 weeks for SG elections,
> > the SG charters and By-law changes need to be approved by the
> > Board at their 30 July meeting.
> > d. The board will require materials (council recommendation
> > on by-law changes and agreed upon SG charters) 4 weeks in
> > advance.  This allows for a required Board comment period.
> > This means the council needs to have made its recommendation
> > on the by-laws by 30 June.  As a separate process, the SIC,
> > Policy Staff and SGs need to finalize the SG charters.
> > e. This means we either decide at our public meeting on 23
> > June, or a special meeting the following week.  It is also
> > possible that we do the vote on the the by-laws via an email
> > vote if all of the discussions have been completed.
> > f. In order to meet ICANN publication deadlines and to give
> > constituencies a chance to review the material before the
> > public meeting, by-laws and  motion should be framed by June
> > 9 at the latest (to give 2 weeks)
> >
> > It was pointed out that this very tight schedule means that
> > the GNSO constituencies, SGs and Council would need to get
> > very timely reports on Board/SIC decisions.
> >
> > 2. We received a SIC update from Raimundo indicating:
> > - the Board has empowered the SIC to act on the questions
> > sent for review by this DT
> > - the SIC will be meeting shortly and will be able to give
> > the council answers shortly (depends on date of SIC mtg)
> > - it is considered necessary to seat the new council in Seoul
> >
> > 3. We reviewed question Q5 Q7, Q8, and Q10
> >
> > - on Q5 a small group composed of Philip, Chuck, Olga and
> > Mary/Milton are working on text that can be proposed to the
> > list that balances their concerns.
> >
> > - on Q7 and Q8, Avri will draft proposed  language for these
> > that is based on adhering to a principle of subsidiarity,
> > i.e. making and documenting decisions at the lowest
> > appropriate unit of organization in the bottom up chain.
> >
> > - on Q10:
> >
> > -- line 45 with reference to the spreadsheet, it was 
> > postulated that there is full consensus on the point: "An
> > individual may not serve simultaneously as a GNSO Councilor
> > and an ICANN Board member". This needs confirmation so the
> > issue can marked as resolved.
> >
> > -- line 46, alternate text was suggested at the end of the 
> > meeting that was not discussed in the meeting, and needs to
> > be discussed on the list:
> > " With the exception of voting, no individual or entity shall
> > be excluded from observing a Constituency merely becasue of
> > participation in another Constituency.  Each Constituency
> > will be repsonsible for determing its own rules relating to
> > observer participation."
> >
> > 4. The next meeting : Monday 1 June at 1300 UTC, but
> > discussions need to continue on the list in order to meet the
> > deadlines.
> >
> > 5. The poll on the selection method for  NCAs is ongoing:
> > http://www.doodle.com/x2ey9ydpq5rga7u9
> >
> > 6. An updated spreadsheet is attached.  Changes are highlighted.
> >
> >
> > Please send any comments or corrections to this list.
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > a.