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

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

Thanks Avri.

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 3:53 PM
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Followup from the meeting.
> 
> 
> 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.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
>