<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
- To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 21:52:36 +0200
Hi,
I have added your change to x.3.8 and lined out XX.6.
Once everyone in this group has had a chance to review and comment, I
will remove the italics and line out markers.
thanks
a.
On 9 Jun 2009, at 21:40, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I guess if it is in the main Bylaws, it is not needed in the
transition
article. Maybe we should delete XX.6 totally? What do you think?
Would it serve any purpose, even with f an g?
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 3:29 PM
To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|