Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
- To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:49:31 +0200
Thanks for the detailed reading.
On 9 Jun 2009, at 14:31, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Avri. Very good job. Here are my comments.
The last paragraph in 'ARTICLE X: GENERIC NAMES SUPPORTING
SECTION 2. ORGANIZATION' says, "Except as otherwise defined in these
by-laws, the GNSO Council, the two Houses, the four Stakeholder
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
it already says with the approval of the board of directors - does it
and while the SIC has said no today to changing a name, i do not see
it as impossible that tomorrow, for some definition of tomorrow, a SG
might decide it want to change its name, come to consensus on a new
name and petition the board to be allowed to do so.
Item 1.e in 'ARTICLE X: GENERIC NAMES SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION; SECTION
3. GNSO COUNCIL' says, "One Nomcom Appointee voting representative
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.
yes and no.
for the transition, how it is done will be defined by the board.
after that by the nomcom.
later in the by-laws (x8), the specifics are made clear regarding the
on the transition, we tried to change it yesterday, but we could not
find the words and figured that the board would decide what went there
when they were ready.
so i think this is covered for now.
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
my understanding is that the SIC said the same thing. Shouldn't we
the voting thresholds to this section with the changes I mention in
last paragraph below?
They would belong in Annex A. which i thought we are not amending
until the PDP group finishes its work.
in the meantime we say:
"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."
Does that cover it?
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
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)
for electing a chari; and 2) a catch all threshold that requires a
simple majority of both houses for any other votes.
Aren't these supposed to be in the Council's ORP?
Do we need to add them to the by-laws for transition?
and are they one of the things that need to be in the early revisions
of the ORP
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,
work for me.
Sorry to take so long on this. I tried to go through it very
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
working. Or I can call you if you like. +1 916 681-0389.
thanks for the effort. I was rushing you because I had promised to
get it out yesterday. But you did not promise to do the sanity check
for me yesterday - i appreciate the effort.
[mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 6:34 PM
Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
I have edited the text. It can be found at:
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
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
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)
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: