[ALAC] GNSO Restructuring Issues - Sept 5th questions

[Nick Ashton-Hart]

Dear All:

I have taken the liberty of posting this online so it can be linked from the vote. The document can be found at: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?alac_response_to_gnso_restructuring_questions_al_alac_st_0908_1

Note: There are a couple of minor edits, which do not alter the substance, simply for grammar (2 edits) and to provide a better URL for the referenced ALAC Statement - I hope this is OK.

You can see the original text at: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?action=revision_view;page_name=alac_response_to_gnso_restructuring_questions_al_alac_st_0908_1;revision_id=20080915105515
A comparison of the original and the current revision, showing the edits, is at: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?action=revision_compare&page_name=alac_response_to_gnso_restructuring_questions_al_alac_st_0908_1&mode=source&new_revision_id=20080915105754&old_revision_id=20080915105515&Button=Compare+Revisions


On 14/09/2008 19:17, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

At the ALAC meeting today last Tuesday, I said I
would take the lead in drafting a response to the
questions on GNSO restructuring raised by the
Board through Denise. You can find a copy of
Denise's original e-mail right at
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05441.html.

Some of the questions already had partial answers
in ALAC's formal prior submissions. In this
draft, these have been augmented with the support of the ExCom and others.

PLEASE NOTE: The deadline for formal submission
is close-of-business Sept 18, so there is clearly
not sufficient time for a formal vote, but all thoughts are welcome.

Alan

----------------
Issue 1 ­ Role of the Third NomCom Appointee (NCA)
Having a non-voting NCA sets a bad precedent
within ICANN. Assuming the voting proposed
(similar) threshholds are accepted, it is unclear
how the carefully crafted voting thresholds can
accommodate having the NCA vote at on the Council
only. Essentially, that NCA is playing the role of a Liaison from nowhere.

Since the Board has set the House numbers as 12:6
before NCA, it makes some sense to allocate the
third NCA to the User House. That gives all NCA's
the same ability to influence outcomes, and
returns to the normal state of NCA's being full
voting members of the bodies to which they are appointed.


Issue 2 ­ Council Leadership; Election of GNSO Council Chair
The proposal calls for a 60% vote from both
houses, leading to the potential of deadlock. The
proposed (minority) alternative (assuming the NCA
is still on the main Council), the NCA option
having that person be the Chair *MAYBE*, makes no
sense at all. If the person will definitely be
the Chair, the NomCom can attempt to find a
person with the correct qualifications. [A quick
poll of several NomCom delegates indicates they
may not be too happy to be given that role, but
perhaps that is moot.] To tell the NomCom that
the person has to have a specific balance of
criteria to be a good Councilor AND also needs to
have organizational and group management skills
to potentially be the chair is pushing it a bit.
And will likely make it hard to recruit
candidates who want to deal with that level of uncertainty.

We favor the weighted voting option with one
vice-chair (perhaps not from the same house as
the Chair). Another alternative suggested is that
each house elect a chair and they alternate, but
that seems to be an administrative and logistical nightmare.

Two vice chairs seems like overkill.


Issue 3 - Election of Board Seats

As already stated, ALAC would prefer a resolution
where all Board members are elected by the entire
Council. Essentially, we shared the same concern
as those raised and stated more eloquently by the Board.

Among the alternatives, we favor the weighted
voting method. The WG discussed but did not
ultimately put forward the idea that each two
house might be responsible for nominating one of
the positions, but it would be voted on by both -
this may address the perceived inequality. It is
important to also ensure that there is a viable
transition process to get to the new methodology
(there were some perceptions that the proposed WG
methodology had a problem in that area).

Another suggestion was that there be bi-cameral
voting (perhaps 60% of one house and 40% of the
other required). But that, as discussed in the
section on Chair elections, could lead to deadlocks.


Issue 4 ­ Voting Thresholds

The ALAC did not take a position other than to
say there was a LOT of give and take by all
parties to get to the proposed thresholds. With
the exception of removal of an NCA, although some
of the thresholds may end up being unworkable, it
is not clear that a better set can be crafted at this point.

With regard to the removal of an NCA, the ALAC
had reservations, particularly with the removal
on a house-level NCA by a vote of only that
house. The term "for cause" made the threshold
barely acceptable, in that the House would have
to justify to the Board why the NCA was being
removed. Nevertheless, if some activity is severe
enough to warrant removal, it would likely be
apparent to both houses, and requiring some level
of support in both houses would be far more transparent.


Issue 5 ­ Implementation

Implementation by January 2009 is very
aggressive. Hopefully Draft Bylaws will be
available quickly for comment and review.

Stakeholder Group issues are indeed likely to
require focus. As noted in the ALAC's statement
to the Board submitted on August 13 (see
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20080814/e462365c/attachment-0001.pdf),
the ALAC feels that the new structure is
sufficiently cumbersome that attracting new
constituencies, and ensuring that the additional
hierarchy of Stakeholder Groups does not add an
onerous administrative burden is going to be difficult. In particular we noted:

* ICANN (and the stakeholder groups) will have to
make it as easy as possible to create and operate
new constituencies. The requirements they must
meet must be reasonable and applied with consistency.
* These new entities must feel comfortable that
they will be able to participate in the Policy
Development Process as discretely identifiable
bodies, at a level comparable to (and not
subservient to) the long-established players (of
course factoring in size). Without that
guarantee, there is little reason for them to
make the considerable effort needed to enter into GNSO processes.
* The new addition level of hierarchy moving from
GNSO->Constituency to GNSO->Stakeholder
Group->Constituency (or as per the consensus
proposal GNSO->House->Stakeholder
Group->Constituency) must be managed to minimize
the need for additional complexity and additional
volunteer effort. Thin layers will be, in our opinion, absolutely mandatory.

As noted in an ALAC statement to be sent to the
Board prior to its September meeting, the ALAC
feels that openness and transparency at the
Stakeholder Group level will also be crucial.


_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac


--

Regards,

Nick Ashton-Hart
Director for At-Large
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88
USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637
Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44
Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68
email: nick.ashton-hart at icann.org
Win IM: ashtonhart at hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart at mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart
Online Bio:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart