[ALAC] [liaison6c] Input Requested on Council Restructuring

[Denise Michel]

Thank you for the input.  This will be provided to the Board, along with
constituency statements, and posted on the GNSO Council email list.

Regards,
Denise


-- 
Denise Michel
ICANN VP, Policy
policy-staff at icann.org

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:

> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>