RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.

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

Thanks Avri.  Very good job.  Here are my comments.

The last paragraph in 'ARTICLE X: GENERIC NAMES SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION;
SECTION 2. ORGANIZATION' says, "Except as otherwise defined in these
by-laws, the GNSO Council, the two Houses, the four Stakeholder Groups,
and the Constituencies will be responsible for defining their own
charters, and/or names with the approval of their members and of the
ICANN Board of Directors."  Based on the direction from the SIC, I am
not sure this is completely accurate: the names of the Houses and SGs
cannot be changed except within their charters.  I suppose that adding
on the condition of Board approval may cover that but we should make
sure.

Item 1.e in 'ARTICLE X: GENERIC NAMES SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION; SECTION
3. GNSO COUNCIL' says, "One Nomcom Appointee voting representative shall
be assigned to each House subject to a selection procedure defined
elsewhere in these by-laws."  Is that procedure going to be defined in
the Bylaws?  I thought it was going to be defined by the NomCom but
maybe I misunderstood the SIC response.

Also in 'ARTICLE X: GENERIC NAMES SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION; SECTION 3.
GNSO COUNCIL', the last paragraph says, "Except as otherwise specified
in the Transition Article XX, Section 5 (link TBD) or Annex A of these
Bylaws (link TBD), all bicameral house voting thresholds required to
pass a GNSO Council motion or other action are prescribed in the GNSO
Council Operating Rules and Procedures approved by the Board."  I
thought we had agreed to include the voting thresholds in the Bylaws and
my understanding is that the SIC said the same thing.  Shouldn't we had
the voting thresholds to this section with the changes I mention in the
last paragraph below?

Item 2 of 'ARTICLE XX: TRANSITION ARTICLE; SECTION 5. GENERIC NAMES
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION' says, "Notwithstanding the adoption of these
Bylaws Amendments, each GNSO Constituency described in paragraph 2 above
shall continue operating substantially as before and . . ."  I think
this should say 'paragraph 1' instead of 'paragraph 2'.

Item 5 in 'ARTICLE XX: TRANSITION ARTICLE; SECTION 5. GENERIC NAMES
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION', I thought we had decided to add: 1) thresholds
for electing a chari; and 2) a catch all threshold that requires a
simple majority of both houses for any other votes.

If there are any areas above that require additional restructure WG
and/or Council discussion, I suggest that we simply flag those and go
ahead and distribute the proposed Bylaws changes to constituencies, etc.

Sorry to take so long on this.  I tried to go through it very thoroughly
and spent several hours yesterday but didn't quite finish before I had
other obligations.  Feel free to give me a call if needed.  I am up and
working. Or I can call you if you like.  +1 916 681-0389.

Chuck

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 6:34 PM
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have edited the text.  It can be found at:
> https://st.icann.org/gnso_transition/index.cgi?proposed_by_laws
> 
> I think I caught it all but it needs to be checked.
> 
> In terms of motions and voting, I propose the following:
> 
> - the motion included below be put in the schedule of 24 
> June.  I will put myself down as the person making the 
> motion.  It will of course need a second.
> 
> - any wording changes that we can reach consensus on on this 
> list, can  
> be treated as friendly amendments and just put in before the vote.    
> Since I will be making the motion of behalf of this team,  it 
> is the consensus of this team that will indicate whether it 
> is a friendly amendment or not.
> 
> - any changes we cannot reach consensus on, can be voted on 
> as amendments before voting on the  main motion.  Of course 
> someone will have to make and second these motions.
> 
> By doing this, we can both present the rough consensus 
> position to the Board as well as the results of any minority 
> positions.
> 
> The motion:
> 
> Whereas
> 
> Insert long history here that includes, review, BCG, Board 
> approval of BCG, work of the team of the whole and SIC 
> response: (hopefully staff can help in writing this chronology)
> 
> Resolved
> 
> The GNSO recommends that the By-laws related to the GNSO 
> council be amended to read as follows:
> 
> insert the text either by inclusion or reference: 
> https://st.icann.org/gnso_transition/index.cgi?proposed_by_laws
> 
> 
> thanks
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>