[council] some issues related to the idea of all terms ending on 23 October.
- To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] some issues related to the idea of all terms ending on 23 October.
- From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:02:21 -0700
- Accept-language: en-US
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Acon9EGkel/LXlQsTf2IWC0vRuJU/QANYVBAAAAZu4A=
- Thread-topic: [council] some issues related to the idea of all terms ending on 23 October.
Dear GNSO Council Members:
In response to Avri's most recent emails concerning the Restructure
Implementation Plan, I thought it would be useful to add some relevant
background along with Staff's rationale concerning certain timing elements and
1. There is an important section of the plan document that was not
referenced in Avri's most recent email. The draft Plan clearly indicates that
the Chair and Vice-Chair would continue in Seoul precisely to manage the
Council's transition. These administrative roles are described in the draft
Restructuring Implementation Plan, as follows:
"GNSO Chair and Vice-Chair: These positions will continue in an administrative
capacity until such time as the new GNSO Council elects a Chair and two
Vice-Chairs, one from each House. Council membership and voting privileges
will be determined in accordance with the provisions of this plan."
The draft Plan intended to clarify that the incumbent GNSO Council Chair and
Vice Chair would be non-voting (unless otherwise elected to the new Council);
otherwise, we would have too many voting Councilors in the bicameral structure
(22 instead 20 members). Due to the unique and special circumstances of this
transition, we anticipated that travel funding for the Chair and Vice-Chairs,
as needed, would be approved by the ICANN Finance Department.
2. As Avri noted in her first email, the Bylaws Amendments (Article XX,
Section 6), posted in August for public comment and approved at the Board
meeting this week, referenced the need for a Restructure Implementation Plan:
"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."
Staff understands that the Board Secretary will be posting a preliminary report
on the results of the Board meeting this week, so you'll be able to confirm
this information shortly. In Staff's view, the Bylaws anticipated the one-time
shortening of existing Councilor terms because the new Council was directed to
take effect "at the commencement of the ICANN meeting in Seoul or such other
date the board may designate by resolution." Thus, by necessity, Councilors'
terms that were not continuing in the new Council would have to terminate prior
to the effective date of the new Council seating. If the GNSO Council believes
that a date other than the commencement of the ICANN meeting in Seoul is more
appropriate, it should identify that date and reflect it in the Plan along with
the details of a plan consistent with that recommendation.
Hopefully this provides you with a fuller context concerning how this draft
proposal was constructed. As Rob indicated, Staff's intent was to provide the
GNSO a starting point for its discussions on finalizing the implementation
details, recognizing that the Council may recommend other approaches as
Senior Policy Counselor
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 9:27 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] some issues related to the idea of all terms ending on 23
Prompted by the document sent by the Policy staff (I know it is from
Rob, but I am assuming that its contents have the imprimatur of the
Policy Staff leadership) I started thinking about the side effects of
ending all terms on the 23 of October. While I still maintain that it
is not what the Bylaws mandate - always assuming that (for the purpose
of this note) they still are as they were in the last draft - I could
be proven wrong. So it seemed worth looking at the possible wrinkle
we have been presented with.
1. So that I have said it and it is out of the way, under those
circumstances, I would no longer be a member of the council and
consequently no longer be council chair. While not having to travel
to Seoul and donating one last week of my life to the GNSO council
cause does have some side benefits, it also prevents me from doing
what I think is my job which is to assist the council in a smooth
transition and orderly hand over.
However, I believe that no one is ever indispensable and certainly
that applies to me. This could be dealt with by making sure that both
houses had elected their vice chairs on the Saturday (my suggestion in
any case), as the Bylaws provide for the vice-chairs to take the
chair role in the absence of a chair.
Since the new council won't be seated until the 23rd they would not be
able to elect a new chair until then. Another possibility would be to
schedule an actual voting meeting on the Saturday morning to either
elect a temporary chair or the actual ongoing chair. Chuck, who I
assume would be re-chosen as a Council member by his SG to finish out
his current time, would be able to chair that meeting until the new
chair was elected. Otherwise, the plan could proceed as I originally
suggested with having the vote on the new chair as well as the vote on
the new Council procedures as the first items of the Wednesday
meeting. If every council member is in attendance either in person on
remotely for at least this part of the meeting, the election can be
completed quickly - otherwise it can be continued as I originally
suggested with a 24 absentee ballet and completed in time for the
There may also be other solutions to this consequent of terminating
all terms on the 23rd but it appears that replacing me as chair is
fairly easy to work around if I am not longer on the council in Seoul.
2. It exacerbates the plan of how the alternate year seating plan is
enacted. I think this is a bigger issue. If it is time zero for
every council member, then we need a plan in each of the SGs to elect
one for one year and another for two years (possibly complicated by
the Contracted parties having an odd number of council members, so
instead of 3 odd and 3 even in the house we might have 2 odd and 4
even). Whereas if some people are appointed to continue with their
last year while others are newly elected to full terms, it is most
likely that a natural alternation will occur that may only need to be
adjuste in a few cases in the non-contracted house.
3. In terms of the continuing NCA, if indeed Terry's term is
terminated, he needs to be reappointed for a one year term. Perhaps
this has already been dealt with and we will find out when the Nomcom
list is announced.
4. I know that as new NCA when I began, the first meeting I attended,
since we do not have retreats as the Board does for new members, was
an important learning time. Inserting a new NCA into the council and
requiring them to be functional on their first day of ICANN
participation (and I do not know whether we have one or two new NCA
council members) is a daunting prospect. Various constituency members
have talked about the need for them to go to the meeting in Seoul to
provide assistance for new council members, and these are people who
have been active in the constituencies. Imagine what it is like for a
new NCA for whom it may be their first ICANN meeting. while I now
feel that I understand every nook and cranny of ICANN's gothic
architecture, it can be frightening at first glance.
There may be other issues, but those are the first that occur to me.