Avri;
For the record, as I have tried to reiterate to the Council on a
number of occasions, the Staff has provided the documents as drafts
that are to be used as a means to spark discussion - not to impose a
set of requirements. I circulated the documents at Chuck’s
suggestion specifically because until today/yesterday, only Kristina
had posted any clarification or comment. The language you cite is
draft language that you correctly note was drafted earlier this
month. The Council is free to craft it a different way. You make
some points about the potential transition that I hope will inspire
further dialogue and discussion – as the drafts were intended to do.
The staff has only one motive in this exercise – clarity, so that
all the necessary to-do’s are completed and everyone on the present
and future Councils is on the same page traveling to Seoul. I have
every hope and expectation that under your leadership it will be
achieved.
RobH
On 8/28/09 12:26 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
I had pointed out to Rob privately before he sent this to the list,
that there are inaccuracies in some of the claims he makes in his
document. We never had a chance to discuss those issues. I therefore
will discuss the most serious of them here.
Robs document states:
> Councilor Terms: Consistent with the Bylaw amendments approved by
> the ICANN Board and solely for the purpose of meeting the ICANN
> Board directive to seat a new GNSO Council at the 2009 annual ICANN
> meeting, all current GNSO Council Representative annual terms,
> including Nominating Committee appointees, expire effective 23
> October 2009. Notwithstanding other Bylaws provisions (e.g. Article
> VII, Section 3; Article XX) that may conflict, the official annual
> term for all continuing or newly elected Council Representatives
> will commence effective 24 October 2009 and terminate at a future
> date and time to be determined by the Council, but no later than the
> end of the 2010 annual ICANN meeting.
>
1. I note that the earlier version of this message (the one he sent
last week) was written before the board had ratified the bylaws. In
fact even at this point we have not yet been informed of whether the
Board has ratified bylaws nor have we been informed of what those
bylaw say. For example we do not know if any changes were made in the
proposed bylaws based on the comments received during the comment
period.
2. He makes his claims notwithstanding Article XX on the transition.
But has not shown where in the bylaws it is stated that the articles
on the transition are superseded by these conditions. And why would
this be not withstanding the transition articles - isn't that what the
transition articles are all about? Can he show where it is written
that the transition articles of the ByLaws do not apply to the
transition? the only way this statement is consistent with the ByLaws
is by ignoring the ByLaws.
3. I can perhaps understand why he wants to ignore article XX as it
provides the conditions for the transition that stand in contradiction
to the standard he wishes to apply. He wishes to claim that " all
current GNSO Council Representative annual terms, including Nominating
Committee appointees, expire effective 23 October 2009." This is,
however not stated anywhere within the bylaw changes that I saw.
The only section, as far as I can tell, in the published bylaws
proposals that are relevant to the transition are article XX
> XX.5 Beginning with the commencement of the ICANN Meeting in
> October 2009, or another date the Board may designate by resolution
> (the “Effective Date of the Transition”), the representatives on the
> GNSO Council from each of the existing six Constituencies shall be
> appointed or elected consistent with the number of Council seats
> allocated by its respective Stakeholder Group in Section 5 [link
> TBD] subject to the following:
> a. The three seats currently assigned to the Registry Constituency
> shall
and
> 6. The GNSO Council, as part of its Restructure Implementation Plan,
> will document: (a) how vacancies, if any, will be handled during the
> transition period; (b) for each Stakeholder Group, how each assigned
> Council seat to take effect at the 2009 ICANN annual meeting will be
> filled, whether through a continuation of an existing term or a new
> election or appointment; (c) how it plans to address staggered terms
> such that the new GNSO Council preserves as much continuity as
> reasonably possible; (d) the effect of Bylaws term limits on each
> Council member.
These statements do not mandate the sort of discontinuity that the
Policy Staff is currently trying to impose. These requirements state
that all SGs need to indicate how they are doing the transition, not
that all terms end. The new bylaws, assuming the last set of bylaws
posted are the new bylaws, also say nothing about NCA terms ending on
23 October, the beginning of the Annual meeting, as opposed to 30
October, the end of the annual meeting as is customary and was the
term agreed to by those volunteers who came through the Nomcom
process. Additionally nothing in the transition accounts for how the
term of the NCA who is the middle of his term is to be handled if his
term ends. Has he been appointed to a one year term by the Nomcom?
Or has the nomcom made 3 appointments, 1 for 1 year, and 2 for 2
years? As the announcements have not been made yet, I do not know.
It is difficult to understand why the Policy Staff would be trying to
impose yet additional rules that had not been approved by the Board.
Isn't the transition already difficult enough without throwing
everything into confusion by contradicting the new bylaws even before
they are announced? It is also hard to understand why we are being
told to do things based on bylaw amendments of which we have not been
notified.
I have not had a chance to subject the rest of this document to that
same sort of analysis this one paragraph cried out for.
I have included the transition in the agenda per Chucks request, but i
believe that the misinformation/misinterpretation in this document
make it difficult to use for any discussion. I recommend that the
council look to the actual Bylaws once we receive them to figure out
what actions we need to take in order to complete the transition
smoothly and to do a smooth handover from the current council to the
new council. I invite the Policy Staff to provide genuine support for
this effort, but request that they not add rules that have not been
announced, gone through a comment period and been approved by the
Board of Directors.
a.
On 27 Aug 2009, at 23:05, Robert Hoggarth wrote:
> Dear Council Members;
>
> At Chuck’s suggestion, to facilitate discussion at the 3 September
> Council meeting I am circulating to you updated copies of the draft
> GNSO Council Restructure Draft Implementation Plan (v3) and the GNSO
> Council Restructure Draft Timetable (v3). You’ll recall I circulated
> previous document versions on 10 August (v1 of the draft Plan and
> Timetable) and 15 August (v2 of the draft Plan). The documents were
> also noted during the 13 August Council meeting. I am hopeful that
> you will set side time for a discussion of the documents at your
> meeting next week.
>
> There are a number of significant transition matters included in the
> draft documents that need your review and community agreement. They
> include (1) the timing of the Council Chair and Vice Chair elections
> – and how that timing impacts a smooth transition in Seoul; (2) the
> timing of the present Council member terms – when they officially
> expire and when the new terms begin; and potentially (3) the
> assignment mechanisms for the three Nominating Committee Appointees
> into their respective slots on the Council (I am hopeful that we
> will have more information on the necessity of that topic in time
> for the meeting).
>
> To make sure that everything is proceeding smoothly, it would also
> be extremely helpful for representatives of the various GNSO
> structures (Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies) to provide some
> basic update information to the Council (verbally at the meeting or
> before in writing) on (1) the progress they are making to establish
> their Executive Committees; and (2) their plans for their Council
> representative (s)elections (see draft Timetable document). On that
> last item, Kristina has provided some very helpful clarification
> information regarding her term and just today Tony Holmes provided a
> helpful update regarding Greg Ruth’s seat and Maggie Mansourkia’s
> new Council member status.
>
> As I mentioned in my previous emails (copies also attached), these
> documents are intended to spark discussion. They are Staff
> suggestions based on the now Board-ratified Bylaws and other recent
> discussions of the Council and the Restructure Drafting Team. The
> Council is obviously free to edit, modify or otherwise complete
> replace the drafts with new plan documents. The only strong
> recommendation is that the Council agree on its plan by the 24
> September meeting so that the community has a complete picture on
> what is expected to happen in Seoul.
>
> I am happy to try and answer any questions regarding the drafts
> between now and the meeting. An email dialogue during the coming
> week may make any meeting discussions shorter and more productive.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rob Hoggarth
> <GNSO Council Restructure Draft Implem Plan (Staffv3)
> 27Aug09.doc><GNSO Council Restructure Draft Implem Timetable
> (Staffv3) 26Aug09.doc>
> From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 10 August 2009 19:20:33 EDT
> To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, liaison6c
<liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> Cc: Denise Michel <denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: GNSO Council Restructure Timetable and Transition Plans
>
>
> Dear GNSO Community members;
>
> As promised by Denise last week, the Staff has developed a timetable
> of key tasks and milestones that need to be addressed over the next
> two months to seat the new GNSO Council by the ICANN Seoul meeting
> deadline.
>
> Attached please find two documents. The first, entitled “GNSO
> Council Restructure Implementation Timetable,” sets out the various
> topic areas that need to be addressed between now and Seoul
> including, among other things, Bylaws Amendment efforts, Council
> seat appointments and the approval of Council operating procedures.
> Where appropriate, Staff has provided specific “last-date”
> milestones to help Council, Stakeholder Group and Constituency
> leaders plan their internal activities in a timely manner.
>
> The second, document, entitled “GNSO Council Restructure
> Implementation Plan,” is being provided as a draft first-step to
> help community leaders make the final detailed transition decisions
> necessary to have the new Council members take their seats in Seoul.
> The document, presented in draft form, provides one potential plan
> format and provides a table identifying each of the existing voting
> GNSO Council Representatives by name, organized by Stakeholder Group
> (except NCAs). The table includes the term-expiration of each seat,
> the potential disposition of that individual’s Council seat, an
> action column indicating which seats appear to require an election
> or appointment, and the regional affiliation for the seats of
> Councilors whose terms are not expiring this year.
>
> As with all our previous Staff suggestions, the documents are
> intended to provide some initial guidance and to be used as tools to
> issue-spot and spark discussion and debate where appropriate. We
> hope they may prove useful at the upcoming Council and Restructure
> Drafting Team meetings. I am happy to field any questions or
> comments any of you have about specific dates or references in the
> documents.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rob Hoggarth
>
>
>
> On 8/4/09 5:47 PM, "Denise Michel" <denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Dear Community Members:
>
> At last Thursday's Board meeting, the Directors considered a number
> of issues related to GNSO Improvements, and made significant
> progress towards seating the new GNSO Council in Seoul.
>
> Specifically, the Board adopted resolutions
<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-30jul09.htm
> > that: (i) approved all of the Stakeholder Group Charters as
> recommended by the Structural Improvements Committee, and (ii)
> approved the ability of the Contracted Party House to select Board
> Seat #13, and the ability of the Non Contracted Party House to
> select Board Seat #14.
>
> The Board also discussed pending new Constituency applications, and
> acknowledged that Staff is posting a complete set of Bylaws
> Amendments for public comment. The Amendments, which have been
> posted
<http://icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200908.html#gnso-restructure
> > , reflect the Board's recent decisions and other GNSO
> restructuring matters necessary to seat the new Council.
>
> Please note that these Bylaw Amendments (Version 2) address a
> number of issues that impact the work of the GNSO Restructuring Work
> Teams. Because these proposed Bylaws include provisions that the
> GNSO Restructuring Drafting Team did not review during its work,
> Staff posted two documents to assist the community in its review.
> One document highlights the differences between the GNSO proposed
> Bylaws proposals
(<http://icann.org/en/general/proposed-gnso-council-bylaw-amendments-notes-comments-03aug09-en.pdf
> >) and the other is a Staff Explanation for some of the more
> substantive amendments included in Version 2
(<http://icann.org/en/general/proposed-gnso-council-bylaw-amendments-explanation03aug09-en.pdf
> >). These include a discussion of issues such as: changes to Annex
> A; additional voting threshold for certain contracting parties; and
> procedures for adopting the GNSO Operating Rules and Procedures.
> We encourage the GNSO Restructuring Work Teams to review and discuss
> these materials at their next meetings, and to provide comments
> during the public comment period, which closes on 23 August. The
> Board expects to act on a comprehensive set of amendments at its 27
> August meeting.
> .
> Additional information on GNSO Improvements follow-up actions that
> should be completed in the next few months will be posted shortly.
>
> Regards,
> Denise
>
> Denise Michel
> ICANN Vice President
> Policy Development
> policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> <GNSO Council Restructure Implem Timetable (Proposed)
> (10Aug09).doc><GNSO Council Restructure Draft Implem Plan
> (Staffv1)10Aug09.doc>
>
>
>
> From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 15 August 2009 00:59:39 EDT
> To: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Adrian Kinderis
<adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: GNSO Council Restructure Draft Implementation Plan (v2)
> - Council Member Seat Terms
>
>
> Dear Chuck:
>
> In response to your request, attached is a revised copy of the GNSO
> Council Restructure Draft Implementation Plan (v2) that includes the
> table of Council member seats. Modifications have been made to
> reflect Kristina’s clarifying comments about her term as an IPC
> representative.
>
> I agree with the comments during Thursday’s Council meeting that
> much of the hard follow-up work for the transition to the new
> Council transition is in the hands of the Stakeholder Groups now,
> but since Article XX, Section 5 of the Bylaws Amendments package
> calls for the Council to develop a Restructure Implementation Plan,
> I am hopeful that, like Kristina, other Council members will
> contribute their thoughts and comments on the draft document.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rob Hoggarth
>
>
> On 8/14/09 8:27 AM, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Adrian,
>
> It seems to me that if we follow this approach, any vote on a travel
> policy that provides possible funding for all Councilors would
> create a
> conflict for everyone who plans to request travel funds. Because a
> majority of Councilors may fit that category, we would never be able
> to
> achieve a majority if they all abstained. Also, the decision would
> then
> be left to those who are not going to request the funds, which I am
> not
> sure is fair.
>
> I personally think that we should try to get more information about
> what
> the actual need may be so that we know what we are actually dealing
> with. In the case of the RyC, we have one Council seat that will be
> up
> for election. Assuming that my seat and Edmon's are left in tack,
> that
> means that we have the possibility of having either three or four
> people
> affected by this motion; three if Jordi is re-elected; four if a new
> person is selected to fill his seat. I for one will not be
requesting
> travel funds and I will check with Edmon and Jordi.
>
> Rob - would you please resend the analysis that was done regarding
> Council seats that shows which seats are termed out, which ones are
> continuing, etc.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
> > Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 3:00 AM
> > To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
> > Subject: RE: [council] Additional topic and motion for this
> > weeks agenda
> >
> >
> > Avri,
> >
> > I propose that if and when this motion is made that all
> > Councillors that may not be continuing on the new Council due
> > to the reorganisation abstain from voting as they are
> > significantly conflicted. That is; they are effectively
> > voting for their own free trip to ICANN.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Adrian Kinderis
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Thursday, 13 August 2009 2:31 AM
> > To: Council GNSO
> > Subject: [council] Additional topic and motion for this weeks
agenda
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Since I was not able to send the proposed letter on increased
> > travel support due to the absence of consensus, I have added
> > it as an AOB topic to the agenda and have included a possible
> > motion. Since this letter has been on the table and list for
> > consensus consideration for over 2 weeks, I hope that it is
> > acceptable to put it forward for this week's meeting.
> >
> > the motion (as yet not made or seconded):
> >
> > Motion made by:
> >
> > Seconded by:
> >
> >
> > Whereas:
> >
> > The plan is to seat the new council in Seoul,
> >
> > and current council members may not longer be council members
> > at that time
> >
> > Resolved:
> >
> > Send the following letter:
> >
> > Letter to Kevin Wilson,
> >
> > I have been mandated by the GNSO council, by a vote of XX to
> > YY, to request support not only for the members of the new
> > bi-cameral council to be seated at Seoul, but also for those
> > current council members who may not be continuing on the new
> > council due to the reorganization.
> >
> > The reason this request is being made is to provide
> > continuity to the GNSO council at this time of restructuring,
> > reorganization and 'improvement.'
> >
> > Thank you
> > Avri Doria
> > for the GNSO Council
> >
> > --
> > thanks
> >
> > a.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> <GNSO Council Restructure Draft Implem Plan (Staffv2)14Aug09.doc>
>
>