[ALAC] [liaison6c] Input Requested on Council Restructuring

[Alan Greenberg]

At 05/09/2008 07:01 PM, Denise Michel wrote:

>Any group intending to contribute comments 
>should submit them to me via email to 
><mailto:policy-staff at icann.org>policy-staff at icann.org 
>by COB on 18 September (PDT).  That will give 
>Board members adequate time before their meeting 
>to review your submissions.  A copy of the Final 
>Report of the WG-GCR is attached for your 
>reference.  The remaining issues also are 
>summarized below, but please reference the 
>report directly for the precise WG-GCR language.

Dear Denise,

The ALAC submits the following comments on the 5 
issues raise in your e-mail of Sept. 5, 2008. 
They have not been the subject of a formal vote, 
but have been submitted for committee comments 
for 4 days and adjusted per those comments. No 
comments were received indicating anything other 
than general support and we expect the comments to be ratified at a later vote.

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) thresholds 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 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. 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, but does 
have the merit of having one from each house.


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 previously 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.