|
Jeff,
Please note my responses below.
Chuck
Can
I propose a meeting between the five work team chairs to discuss the items
being worked on as I already see overlapping subject areas. For example,
to the extent that the voting thresholds are involved in the policy process,
those are being discussed in the PPSC work teams. Again we are not
looking at changing the thresholds, but providing more clarity as to what they
mean. It sounds like from your note Chuck that this may be also
addressed by other teams as well.
[Gomes,
Chuck] As long as we have a clear agenda with objectives that are useful
to all the WT chairs, I think this would be fine. I think the first
task is to develop the agenda.
For
example,
?Create an Issues
Report: requires more than
25% vote of both houses or majority of one house?
·
I
take it from your e-mail Chuck, that the issue of what constitutes a 25% vote
is a matter for each SG to address and recommend to the Council?[Gomes,
Chuck] The Contracted House will have 7 votes; 25% would be 2 votes. The
Users House will have 13 votes; 25% would be 4 votes. What needs to
be defined?
·
However,
what is an issues report? Is an issues report the first step in the
process? Is there something in between an issues report and a vote on
what used to be known as a PDP? ? These are questions for the PDP work team,
correct?[Gomes, Chuck] These are legitimate questions for the PDP WT
to work on on and could result in the need to add new thresholds
and maybe even the elmination of thresholds as currently defined.
For example, maybe we won't even have anything called an issues report so that
threshold could eventually be deleted. In the meantime though we
will be operating using the existing PDP so we would need a voting threshold
for issues reports.
I
think a meeting between the five chairs of the work teams and icann
staff may be helpful to get the issues on the table. Perhaps then you will be
able to see why I am leery about implementing the voting thresholds in June if
the other work is not done?[Gomes, Chuck] I think it is helpful to recognize
that the GNSO bicameral structure will be implemented before the GNSO
Improvements WTs finish there work. In the case of the PPSC and its two
work teams, they likely will not be finished with their work when
the bicameral Council is seated, whether that is in June or some later date,
but policy work will still need to continue. The natural way for that to
happen is to use the existing PDP and thus there is a need for voting
thresholds in the bicameral model to support that. Once the GNSO
improvement recommendations from the WTs are fully implemented, we may need to
change the thresholds but that should just be a change in the Rules and
not a change in the Bylaws, although I support a Bylaws requirement
that Rules changes require a high threshold (at least 60% of each
house) and Board approval so as to avoid making rules changes too
easy.
Apparently
e-mails alone will not solve the issue (especially because not everyone on
this list can get my e-mails ? I cannot post to the council list).[Gomes,
Chuck] I believe that all Councilors are on this
list.
Jeffrey
J. Neuman, Esq.:
NeuStar,
Inc.
Vice
President, Law & Policy
The
information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of
the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or
copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original
message.
From: Gomes, Chuck
[mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:58
AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx;
stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [liaison6c] RE: [council]
Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO
Restructure
The
voting thresholds are for the bicameral Council, not the SGs. It will be
up to the SGs to inform their Council reps how to vote on the Council.
The GNSO Operations work team is tasked with developing revised Rules of
Procedure for the Council and proposing those to the Council for
consideration. That of course will involve full community
input.
Chuck
From: Neuman, Jeff
[mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:49
AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx;
stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx;
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE:
[liaison6c] RE: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to
GNSO Restructure
We
are not revisiting those, but there are still so many unanswered questions
even around the voting thresholds (i.e., does voting results mean of those
present or does it mean of those in the stakeholder group as a whole) that
need to be explored and some believe that we should not implement any new
thresholds until these questions are answered by the community. In any
case, it is a subject for the work teams to consider (as opposed to just the
Council).
Jeffrey
J. Neuman, Esq.:
NeuStar,
Inc.
Vice
President, Law & Policy
The
information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of
the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or
copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original
message.
From: Gomes, Chuck
[mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:32
AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx;
stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx;
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE:
[liaison6c] RE: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to
GNSO Restructure
Jeff,
I
think we need to separate the voting thresholds from the PDP work, at least
for now. That would not necessarily mean that the thresholds could not
be revisited later if I problem was discovered relative to the revised PDP
but I would hope that that is an unlikely possibility. A lot of
community thought already went into the thresholds and I don't think it is a
good idea to start that over.
Chuck
From: Neuman, Jeff
[mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009
9:25 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx;
stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx;
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE:
[liaison6c] RE: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to
GNSO Restructure
I
was reading Section 11 in the document (reprinted below) that jumped out
at me. The reason I made my comments was because one of the issues
that the work team was discussing was what needed to be accomplished prior
to the June date as opposed to after. It was also up for discussion
as to what would happen with the PDP if everything were not
completed. The assumption some had in the group was that even if the
GNSO divided into Stakeholder Groups at the June date, the PDP may very
well be unaltered until such time as the Work Team/Council and Board felt
the changes could be implemented. But this seems to envision a piece
meal adoption of a new PDP (namely adopting the voting thresholds with no
explanation or context until other pieces could be (if ever)
adopted)).
The
registries and registrars may not like changing the PDP in this piecemeal
fashion since it would affect how consensus policies are developed.
I also fear that we (the Work Team/Council/Staff) could get bogged
down in discussing what should happen at transition date and never get to
the ultimate substance (the redesign of the PDP as a
whole).
I
do not view this issue as a GNSO council issue, but rather as a community
issue that at the very least the work team will need to address.
11. 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:
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 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 With a Super Majority: requires greater than 75% majority in
one house and majority in the other house.
Jeffrey
J. Neuman, Esq.:
NeuStar,
Inc.
Vice
President, Law & Policy
The
information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
and delete the original message.
From: Gomes, Chuck
[mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 8:05
PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx;
stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx;
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE:
[liaison6c] RE: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to
GNSO Restructure
Jeff,
Note
that the Bylaws changes are supposed to only relate to the restructure of
the Council to the new bicameral model and not to the broader GNSO
improvements effort for which implementation plans are being developed
by the work teams. It is true that the revised PDP will be a
Bylaws issue but I don't believe that is included in this draft of Bylaws
changes. The goal of this limited effort is to make sure that any
Bylaws changes are in place before the Council moves to the bicameral
model.
Chuck
From: Neuman,
Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, March 29,
2009 6:30 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx;
stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx;
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re:
[liaison6c] RE: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating
to GNSO Restructure
Speaking
not as a councilor, but as one who is still on these lists. There are
many questions still being addressed by the 5 work teams which seem to
be (perhaps unintentionally) superseded by Staff's work. As the chair of
one of the work teams, one of our agenda items to discuss within the
team (notice I did not say council) what parts should be in the bylaws
and what should be in rules of operation. Again that is dependent as
Chuck said on how the rules of operation can be changed.
I want
to thank Staff for this work, but I fear this will be a distraction as
opposed to an aid for the community in doing the work of the 5 work
teams. I again thank staff for doing some of this work, but I am afraid
much of it was too premature. It is the community that needs to figure
out how this will work, not the staff.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J.
Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
From:
owner-liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: Ken Bour ; Stéphane Van
Gelder ; Margie Milam ; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sun Mar 29 17:28:39
2009
Subject: [liaison6c] RE: [council] Draft Revisions to the
ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure
I
support the suggestion to move voting thresholds to the Rules but with a
condition in the Rules that any changes to the thresholds requires
a high voting bar (at least 60% of both houses) and that the Bylaws
require Board approval of the Rules and any amendments to the
Rules. In my opinion, the consensus reached on GNSO restructure
was highly dependent on the interdependency of several elements of the
restructure recommendations. In particular, the recommended
thresholds were a very crucial part of the overall package that we
agreed to, so if it is too easy to change those, it could compromise the
whole set of recommendations.
I
do not agree that this document is almost ready. I think we have
quite a bit of work to do still and this is much too important to
rush. I am all for doing it quickly, but let's make sure we
carefully deal with all the issues that are being identified. In
that regard, I think it would be helpful if Staff prepared a document
organized similar to what they have already done that integrates all the
various comments including their source with each
section.
Chuck
From:
owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009
2:59 PM
To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Margie Milam';
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:
[council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO
Restructure
Stéphane:
Thank you
for your prompt initiative and the supportive observations.
Please see my embedded comments below.
If there
are any other questions, please continue to raise them. In
the interest of time, we recognize and appreciate the Council?s active
interest and remain committed to timely and thorough replies.
Ken
Bour
From:
owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Friday, March
27, 2009 1:05 PM
To: Margie Milam; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Draft
Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO
Restructure
Margie,
Thanks
for sending these on. As we are so pushed for time, allow me to get
the ball rolling on this discussion and make a few
comments.
Section 3. Article 1.
Moving the ?geographic
regions goalposts? up from ?no 2 members? to ?no 3 members? seems like
a sensible suggestion for those SGs with 6 Council members. I agree
with it.
[KAB: ]
Staff appreciates your support of this provision.
Section
3. Article 3.
What?s your rationale for recommending that ?vacancy
rules? be moved to OR&Ps?
[KAB: ]
The only specific provision, in this section, deals with the removal
of an NCA for cause and includes the actual voting
thresholds. One of Staff?s sub-objectives in this
re-drafting assignment was to eliminate any/all provisions that, in
its judgment, could be more effectively accommodated within internal
Council procedures. One area identified was detailed
voting thresholds and another involved this topic of vacancies,
removals, and resignations. Staff suggests that such
provisions do not rise to the level of being required in ICANN-level
legal Bylaws. In the event that new Council voting
thresholds are added or modified, in the future, such changes could be
accomplished locally versus requiring protracted formal Bylaws
amendments. Similarly, procedures for handling Council
vacancies, resignations, and other administrative matters seem more
appropriate for OR&P vs. corporate Bylaws.
Section
3. Article 7.
Are there no voting thresholds for selecting the
chair and vice-chairs?
[KAB: ]
Yes, there are bicameral house voting thresholds for these positions
and, as discussed above, they will be prescribed in the Council?s
OR&P currently under revision by the GNSO Operations Work Team
(Ray Fassett, Chair) under the auspices of the Operations Steering
Committee (OSC). The Council Chair election requires 60%
of both houses and the Vice-Chair positions are prescribed in the
following language, inserted below:
?The GNSO
Council shall also select two Vice Chairs, one elected from each of
the two voting houses. If the Council Chair is elected
from one of the houses, then the non-voting Council-Level Nominating
Committee Appointee shall serve as one of the Vice Chairs in lieu of
the Vice Chair from the house of the elected Chair. If the
Chair is elected from one of the houses, that person shall retain
his/her vote in that house.?
Section
3. Article 8.
I agree the voting threshold descriptions belong in
the OR&Ps, but it would be helpful for our discussion of the
bylaws to have a reminder of what they are. Can you provide a link to
where they are please?
[KAB: ]
The voting thresholds originally prescribed by the Working Group on
GNSO Council Restructuring (WG-GCR) contained both PDP and non-PDP
elements. In this re-drafting exercise, Staff is
recommending that they be parsed out as follows: the non-PDP
voting thresholds will be contained in Council OR&P while the PDP
thresholds will be included in Article XX?Transition until such time
as the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and PDP Work Team
(Jeff Neumann, Chair) have completed deliberations and are prepared to
recommend a formal revision to Annex A of the Bylaws.
Since the PDP thresholds are currently specified in Annex A, which is
not being revised as part of this restructuring effort, Staff
recommends that the new PDP thresholds should be included in Article
XX vs. Council OR&P. Article XX is a ?transition?
document only and, once the PDP voting thresholds are successfully
relocated from Annex A to the Council OR&P (Staff?s
recommendation), Article XX can be removed from the Bylaws in its
entirety (assuming all other transition matters are
completed). Below are the voting thresholds recast
into the two groupings:
Non-PDP:
a)
Elect
Council Chair: requires 60% of both houses.
b)
Remove NCA
for Cause: requires 75% of both houses (excluding the NCA
subject to removal); subject to Board approval.
c)
All other
GNSO Council Business (default): requires majority of both
houses.
PDP:
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 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 with a Super Majority: requires greater than 75% majority in
one house and majority in the other house.
Apart
from the points raised above, I think this document is already very
near completion. Having seen it, I must admit I feel a lot more
confident that we can move ahead with sufficient speed to meet the
deadlines set in your email for our review of these proposed bylaws.
Congratulations on a well-written document.
[KAB: ]
Staff appreciates the compliment and the vote of confidence toward a
successful June Council seating. Thank you!
Stéphane
Le
27/03/09 00:34, « Margie Milam » <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx> a
écrit :
Dear
All,
As discussed in today?s GNSO call, ICANN
Staff has prepared Draft Bylaws Revisions (attached) that contain
Staff recommendations for changes relating to the GNSO restructure.
They are intended to serve as a starting point for the
GNSO Council?s discussions.
General
Observations
· These
Bylaws were drafted to be consistent with Board recommendations as to
structure and principles.
· Staff also
attempted to build in flexibility to accommodate changes in the future
without requiring Bylaws amendments. For example, Staff
recommends that some issues be moved from the Bylaws to GNSO Council
Operating Rules and Procedures that would be approved by the
Board.
· Since the
Board approved improvements did not provide specific details with
respect to all topics, ICANN staff developed recommendations to
address these gaps, which are contained in footnotes throughout the
document.
· The Draft
Bylaws Revisions are subject to review by the ICANN Office of the
General Counsel for legal form as well as consistency.
· A few
additional decisions will be needed to finalize these Bylaws, for
example, Board approval of the unresolved open issue concerning
Board seats 13 and 14, and further Council work on certain of the
transition procedures (e.g. staggered terms, elections).
Format of
Revisions
· To
facilitate reviewing these changes, the Draft Bylaws is organized as a
side-by-side comparison of the current language and the proposed
language.
· The yellow
highlighted text refers to new or substantially revised language
compared to the current Bylaws.
· The
footnotes include rationale statements where Staff thought an
explanation might be helpful.
Next
Steps and Timing
· The GNSO
Council will need to decide how it would like to review the Draft
Bylaws to develop its recommendations.
· ICANN Staff
will be working with the GNSO Operations Work Team in developing the
GNSO Operating Rules and Procedures to incorporate those improvements
that were omitted from the Bylaws in order to provide
flexibility.
· In order to
seat the new Council by June, the Board would need to approve of
the revisions by no later than its May 21st meeting.
· A public
comment period would need to take place before the May 21st
meeting.
· The Council
would need to complete its review/analysis by the next GNSO council
meeting on April 16th in order to accommodate the public comment
period.
· Due to this
short time period, the GNSO Council is currently evaluating the most
effective way to proceed.
Finally,
ICANN Staff is available to provide background and additional
information on the Draft Bylaws Revisions if it would be helpful for
your review.
Regards,
Margie
Milam
Senior
Policy Counselor
ICANN
|