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

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

Avri,

You will see below that a backed off of putting all thresholds in the
Bylaws.  How about this:  

Replace the last paragraph of X.8 (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.) with the
following:

"Bicameral Council voting thresholds:

a. Create an Issues Report: requires more than 25% vote of both houses
or majority of one house;
b. Initiate a PDP Within Scope: requires more than 33% vote of both
houses or more than 66% vote of one house;
c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires a vote of more than 75% of
one house and a majority of the other house ("Super Majority");
d. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a Super Majority: requires a
majority of both houses and further requires that one representative of
at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports;
e. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a Super Majority: requires greater
than 75% majority in one house and majority in the other house;
f. Election of officers: The voting thresholds for electing Council
officers are contained in the GNSO Council Operating Rules and
Procedures approved by the Board.
g. Other issues: require a simple majority of both houses." 

BTW, I may have another fix that is needed.  In 'ARTICLE XX: TRANSITION
ARTICLE; SECTION 5. GENERIC NAMES SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION' item 6 says,
"In the absence of further action by the Board to modify or amend Annex
A to these Bylaws and/or this Transition Article XX, Section 5, the
newly seated GNSO Council will utilize the following voting thresholds
for all policy development activity conducted commencing with the ICANN
meeting in June 2009: . . ."  I think that June needs to be changed to
October.

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 2:21 PM
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Ok,
> 
> While I think that goes against what had been suggested by the SIC:
> 
> "With the sole exceptions of those cases where General 
> Counsel advises that a particular policy rule should be moved 
> to the Bylaws, all policy rules should be specified at the 
> Rules and Procedures level.  
> Notwithstanding, the Bylaws should include voting thresholds 
> for Policy Development, which would cover the main 
> contractual concerns."
> 
> I suppose that can be what the council recommends.
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't think it matters whether things are in 
> the Operating Rules and Procedure of the B-laws except for 
> those things that impinge on contractual conditions, i.e. i 
> agree with the SIC on this one, but if the this group agrees 
> with you then that is what should be in the motion.
> 
> Can you suggest the wording you believe belongs there?
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On 9 Jun 2009, at 20:09, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > I believe that all voting thresholds should be in the 
> Bylaws because 
> > they are fundamental to the design of the bicameral structure.
> >
> > 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 12:42 PM
> >> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> some more questions and comments inline.
> >>
> >> thanks
> >>
> >> a.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9 Jun 2009, at 18:03, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >> i have drawn a line though the phrase in an updated version.
> >> what do others think?
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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."
> >>
> >> Except that that sentence already starts:
> >> "Except as otherwise specified in the Transition Article 
> XX, Section 
> >> 5 (link TBD) or Annex A of these Bylaws (link TBD).."
> >>
> >> what I am trying to understand is whether you are saying that we 
> >> should put all all voting thresholds in the by-laws, even 
> though SIC 
> >> appears to be answered that they should be in ORP except 
> as required 
> >> by legal.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
>