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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

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 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.

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; 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.
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."  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?
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  
> above
> shall continue operating substantially as before and . . ."  I think
> this should say 'paragraph 1' instead of 'paragraph 2'.
done

> 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.
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,  
> etc.
work for me.

> 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.
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.
a.

> 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.