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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Would you suggest that we also remove it from XX.6.  Or should we  
perhaps just add f & g to XX.6?
a.

On 9 Jun 2009, at 20:50, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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.