RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Bd resolution of May 21 as posted today

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

Tim,

Without minimizing your concern let me say that I don't think the
process is exactly as you imply.  Staff, with the approval of the Board
Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) is going to make recommendations
for changes to the charters that will be sent to the constituencies and
pending Stakeholder Groups and posted for public comment; I think it is
fair to assume that the recommendations will relate to charter areas
where there are questions as to whether they are compliant with the
Board GNSO Improvement Recommendations.  After public comments are
received, including responses from constituencies and pending SGs, the
Board will make decisions regarding the charters.  It is not specified
how those final decisions will be made.  Will there be any additional
dialog with constituencies and pending SGs?  I don't know.  But I do
think they are anxious to get the changes in place.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:51 AM
> To: metalitz,steven
> Cc: avri doria; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Bd resolution of May 21 as posted today
> 
> 
> The Board and Staff are going to revise our SG charters and 
> we then have to live with their changes? How is that a 
> bottom-up consensus driven process? Hopefully I am reading this wrong.
> 
> Tim
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Bd resolution of May 21 as posted today
> From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, May 29, 2009 8:31 am
> To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> According to this the revised SG charters and explanatory 
> memorandum will be posted by Sunday. 
> 
> Whereas, the Board established a four-phase timetable 
> intended to seat the newly structured GNSO Council by the 
> ICANN meeting in Sydney, Australia; 
> 
> Whereas, the Board acknowledges that the GNSO community has 
> made an effort to comply with the timetable - including 
> submission of proposed Stakeholder Group charters; 
> 
> Whereas, most of these charters require revisions to ensure 
> equitable participation and representation by new constituencies; 
> 
> Resolved (2009-05-21-13), the Board directs the Structural 
> Improvements Committee and ICANN Staff to make the necessary 
> changes to the Stakeholder Group charters to make them 
> consistent with the Board's GNSO Improvements Report and 
> related Resolutions, and to post the revised charters, and an 
> explanatory memorandum, for GNSO consultation and public 
> comment later this month; 
> 
> Resolved (2009-05-21-14) the Board will consider any comments 
> and the Stakeholder Group charters for Board action at the 
> ICANN Sydney meeting in June 2009. 
> 
> All Board members present unanimously approved of these resolutions. 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:40 PM
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Notes from Restructure meeting 
> of 25 May
> 
> 
> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> 
>