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

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

Please see my responses below.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 10:50 AM
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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 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?

Chuck: I can live with it as is but we might want in the meantime, while
constituencies are reviewing the proposed changes, to ask the SIC if
they are okay with the wording.

> 
> 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.

Chuck: One thing it seems to me we do not know is whether it will be
defined in the Bylaws or elsewhere.  One thing we could do is delete "in
these Bylaws" and leave the first sentence as "One Nomcom Appointee
voting representative shall be assigned to each House subject to a
selection procedure defined elsewhere."  I am comfortable with whatever
you decide.

> 
> >
> >
> > 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.

Chuck: My objection is that the clause says, "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".  We
agreed that they would be defined in the Bylaws. Whether that happens
now or later after the PDP WG finishes is less significant than the fact
that we state they will be in Rules.  We should at least say "all
bicameral house voting thresholds required to pass a GNSO Council motion
or other action will be prescribed in the Bylaws."  

> 
> 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?

Chuck: Only with the change I stated above. This is needed too.

> 
> 
> >
> >
> > 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

Chuck: My opinion is that all the voting thresholds should be in the
Bylaws including in Article XX.

> 
> >
> >
> > 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.

Chuck: I actually tried but ran out of time.

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