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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Agreed.  This concerns me as well.  Not bottom-up at all.  

The upshot is that since Stakeholder Groups are not formally members or staff 
of ICANN, in theory , we could disregard the Board proposals for changing any 
of the charters.  Of course, the Board can withhold money or meeting 
space....but I digress.  Point is that we should treat the Board 
recommendations on changes to the charters as just that...non-binding 
recommendations.

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.: NeuStar, Inc.
Vice President, Law & Policy 


The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 12:03 PM
To: Tim Ruiz; metalitz,steven
Cc: avri doria; gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Bd resolution of May 21 as posted today


"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"

I hope you're reading this wrong too Tim, but I don't see any other way it
could be read.

Worrying...

Stéphane


Le 29/05/09 15:51, « Tim Ruiz » <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
>