Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
Hi, Thanks for the detailed reading. Comments inline. 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 ORGANIZATION;SECTION 2. ORGANIZATION' says, "Except as otherwise defined in theseby-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.
it already says with the approval of the board of directors - does it need more?
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; SECTION3. GNSO COUNCIL' says, "One Nomcom Appointee voting representative shallbe 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 long term 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." Ithought 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 thelast 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 theseBylaws Amendments, each GNSO Constituency described in paragraph 2 aboveshall 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 NAMESSUPPORTING ORGANIZATION', I thought we had decided to add: 1) thresholdsfor 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 goahead and distribute the proposed Bylaws changes to constituencies, etc.
work for me.
Sorry to take so long on this. I tried to go through it very thoroughlyand spent several hours yesterday but didn't quite finish before I hadother obligations. Feel free to give me a call if needed. I am up andworking. 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.
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.