[ALAC] [council] Re: Input Requested on Council Restructuring

[Alan Greenberg]

Denise, please find attached the ALAC comments. 
As usual, due to the tight time-frame, these have 
been sent to ALAC and RALO folks, with some 
comments received (now incorporated) and no 
negative comments, but has not been subject to a formal vote.

Alan

At 19/09/2008 03:37 AM, you wrote:
>Dear Community Members,
>
>As previously noted, discussions continue on 
>outstanding issues related to GNSO Council 
>restructuring.  I wanted to keep you apprised of 
>issues and ideas under consideration that I am 
>aware of, and give you (individually or as 
>constituencies/advisory committees if time 
>permits) an opportunity to provide input.  Thank 
>you to those who responded to my previous email 
>(included below).  Additional input received 
>before 26 September on the issues noted below 
>will be summarized for the Board prior to their 
>30 September meeting at which these issues will be discussed.
>
>1)  Registrants and/or Individual User 
>Participation --  If the Non-commercial 
>Stakeholder Group includes individual Internet 
>user groups, should any distinctions be made 
>with the membership of the ALAC and supporting 
>At-Large structures (which represents individual 
>Internet users' viewpoint across all of ICANN's 
>structures and activities)?  The GNSO Working 
>Group (WG-GCR) recommended the inclusion of "all 
>interested parties that use or provide services 
>for the Internet..." in the non-contracted party 
>house and stated that it "should not be 
>restricted to domain registrants."  The BGC GNSO 
>Improvements Report adopted by the Board in June 
>stated that a new Non-commercial Stakeholders 
>Group "must go far beyond the membership of the 
>current NCUC" (which is chartered to represent 
>non-commercial entities). "We must consider 
>educational, research, and philanthropic 
>organizations, foundations, think tanks, members 
>of academia, individual registrant groups and 
>other noncommercial organizations, as well as 
>individual registrants, as part of a 
>non-commercial registrants Stakeholders Group."
>
>2) Voting Thresholds for New Working Group Model 
>-- An additional issue raised is whether voting 
>thresholds were needed for electing the chair of 
>a PDP WG and approving the charter for a PDP 
>WG.  If so, what should the thresholds be? (see 
>previous email below for other thresholds recommended by the WG-GCR).
>
>3) Electing Council Leadership -- There seems to 
>be agreement with the WG-GCR proposal to elect 
>the chair by 60% vote of both houses, and the 
>discussion is focused on whether a back-up 
>provision is needed.  If you have not provided 
>comments, input would be appreciated on whether 
>an alternate provision is needed in case no 
>candidate achieves such supermajority and, if 
>so, what that provision should be.  Ideas 
>discussed include:  the full Council voting with 
>a simple majority with weighted voting in the 
>contracted party house to make the total house 
>votes equal, and the NCAs would each have a 
>single vote; and elect a chair by more than 50% of the vote of both houses.
>
>4) Implementation Plan -- The Board has directed 
>that an implementation plan be submitted for 
>Board approval that creates a transition to the 
>new Council structure.  Further input would be 
>appreciated on this point, including on 
>transition timing and whether additional 
>guidance or requirements are needed on the 
>implementation plan.  Also, views would be 
>appreciated on what provision should be made to 
>fill seats on the new Council if a Stakeholder 
>Plan is not approved by the Board.
>
>Thank you for your continued involvement and input.
>
>Regards,
>Denise
>
>--
>Denise Michel
>ICANN VP, Policy
><mailto:policy-staff at icann.org>policy-staff at icann.org
>
>
>
>
>On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Denise Michel 
><<mailto:denise.michel at icann.org>denise.michel at icann.org> wrote:
>Dear GNSO Community Leaders:
>
>As I reported during yesterday's GNSO Council 
>teleconference meeting and previously via email, 
>the ICANN Board made significant progress 
>discussing various aspects of the GNSO Council 
>restructuring at its 28 August meeting.  During 
>the meeting, Board members discussed a number of 
>consensus recommendations developed by the 
>special working group on GNSO Council 
>Restructuring (WG-GCR).  The Board endorsed the 
>direction of the WG-GCR Report and approved a 
>bicameral voting structure that includes 
>contracted and non-contracted party houses each 
>composed of voting stakeholder representatives 
>and independent nominating committee appointees 
>(see 
><<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05417.html>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05417.html>). 
>The Board directed that a transition to this new 
>structure be accomplished by January 2009.
>
>Several Council restructuring issues remained 
>unresolved. The Board is continuing its 
>discussions and intends to address these issues 
>at its next meeting on 30 September.  There are 
>five major issue areas yet to be decided:  (1) 
>the role of an independent third Nominating 
>Committee Appointee (NCA) that the Board has 
>decided will serve on the Council; (2) the 
>process for electing Council leadership (Chair 
>and Vice Chairs); (3) the process for filling 
>Board seats #13 and #14; (4) the voting 
>thresholds for various Council decisions as 
>proposed by the WG-GCR; and (5) general 
>implementation issues. (It is important to keep 
>in mind that the Board is actively considering 
>Council restructuring and additional ideas and issues could emerge.)
>
>To assist Board members in their deliberations, 
>Staff will be preparing an analysis and 
>recommendation for each of these remaining 
>decision points.  I would like to include 
>additional community input in that process and 
>invite all GNSO constituencies, other ICANN 
>structures, and the nominating committee 
>appointees to share their views as 
>appropriate.  For each of the four WG-GCR 
>recommendations outlined below I am requesting 
>each group to submit a one-paragraph statement 
>clarifying its perspective on that topic.  I 
>also hope that each group will take the 
>opportunity to highlight in one paragraph what 
>they believe to be the most significant 
>implementation issues that will need to be 
>addressed (Issue 5). Note: your comments will 
>not be edited or summarized, but will be 
>collated and submitted directly to Board members 
>for their consideration.  A copy of this 
>submission will be posted on the public GNSO email list.
>
>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.
>
>Issue 1 – Role of the Third NCA:
>
>At it 28 August meeting the Board directed that 
>each voting house include one voting Nominating 
>Committee appointee (NCA).  The Board also 
>directed that a third "independent" NCA continue 
>to serve on the Council – a matter on which the 
>WG-GCR could not reach consensus. The Board has 
>not yet determined what the role, function or 
>status of that third NCA will be on the 
>Council.  Ideas currently under discussion 
>include: making this NCA non-voting and not 
>assigned to either house (recommended by Staff); 
>making the third NCA voting (unclear yet how 
>this would fit into the bicameral voting 
>structure); including the third NCA as a voting 
>member of the non-contracted party house to 
>maintain a 6:1 ratio of constituency representatives to NCAs;
>
>Issue 2 – Council Leadership; Election of GNSO Council Chair
>
>The WG-GCR proposed that the GNSO Council Chair 
>be elected by a 60% vote of BOTH voting houses 
>and that each house elect its own Vice Chair to 
>serve in that capacity.  A WG-GCR non-consensus 
>compromise suggested that if that process could 
>elect no Chair, then a third Council-level 
>Nominating Committee Appointee should serve as a 
>non-voting Chair.  The Board generally discussed 
>the leadership selection options at it 28 August 
>meeting, but did not reach a decision. Ideas 
>currently under discussion include: adopting the 
>WG-GCR proposal (recommended by Staff); adopting 
>the WG-GCR proposal as well as the proposal to 
>use the third NCA as a non-voting Chair if 
>needed; and have the Chair elected by a simple 
>majority of the full Council with weighted 
>voting (12 votes each for the contracted and 
>non-contracted party houses, and single vote for each of the three NCAs).
>
>Issue 3 - Election of Board Seats
>
>The WG-GCR proposed that, at the end of the 
>current terms for Board seats #13 and #14, the 
>contracted party voting house elect Seat 13 by a 
>60% vote and that the user/non-contracted party 
>voting house elect Seat 14 by a 60% vote.  The 
>WG-GCR agreed that the two seats cannot BOTH be 
>held by individuals who are employed by, serve 
>as an agent of, or receive any compensation from 
>an ICANN-accredited registry or registrar, nor 
>can they both be held by individuals who are the 
>appointed representatives to one of the GNSO 
>user stakeholder groups. Staff is exploring 
>concerns that changes in the Board election 
>methodology for Seats 13 and 14 as proposed by 
>the WG-GCR would have the effect of creating 
>Board members from each of the voting houses, 
>rather than Board members from the entire GNSO. 
>(All Board seats are to serve the interests of 
>ICANN's public benefit mandate, not the 
>interests of individual groups; the SO level 
>represents a view of an entire sector of the 
>ICANN community and there is concern that to 
>more narrowly define the parameters of selection 
>within an SO is inconsistent with the 
>non-representational capacity of the members 
>once they reach the board of directors).
>
>The Board did not have time to thoroughly 
>address this matter at its 28 August session. 
>Ideas currently under discussion include: 
>adopting the WG-GCR proposal; deferring this 
>issue and dealing with it as part of the Board 
>Review (which is ongoing); adopting a 
>Council-wide supermajority selection criteria; 
>adopting a method which uses a simple majority 
>of the full Council with weighted voting (12 
>votes each for the contracted and non-contracted 
>party houses, and single vote for each of the three NCAs).
>
>Issue 4 – Voting Thresholds:
>"The WG-GCR reached consensus on the following 
>collection of voting thresholds: "Create an 
>Issues Report (currently 25% of vote of 
>Council)– either greater than 25% vote of both 
>houses or simple majority of one house
>Initiate a PDP within Scope of the GNSO per 
>ICANN Bylaws and advice of ICANN GC 
>(currently >33% of vote of Council) -- greater 
>than 33% vote of both houses or greater than 66% vote of one house
>Initiate a PDP not within Scope of the GNSO per 
>ICANN Bylaws and advice of ICANN GC 
>(currently >66% of vote of Council) – greater 
>than 75% vote of one house and a simple majority of the other
>Approval of a PDP without Super-Majority 
>(currently >50% of vote of Council) -- Simple 
>majority of both houses, but requires that at 
>least one representative of at least 3 of the 4 stakeholder groups supports
>Super-Majority Approval of a PDP (currently >66% 
>of vote of Council) – Greater than 75% majority 
>in one house and simple majority in the other
>Removal of Nominating Committee Appointees for 
>Cause subject to ICANN Board Approval (currently 
>75% of Council):  a) At least 75% of User/NCP 
>House to remove Nominating Committee appointee 
>on User/NCP House; b) At least 75% of Contracted 
>Parties House to remove Nominating Committee 
>appointee on Contracted Parties House; c) [At 
>least 75% of both voting houses to remove the 
>Council-level Nominating Committee appointee].
>All other GNSO Business (other than Board 
>elections) – simple majority of both voting houses."
>The Board did not have time at its 28 August 
>meeting to discuss these voting 
>thresholds.  Staff has recommended adoption of 
>all voting thresholds noted in the WGGCR Report, 
>except for Category F, the threshold for removal 
>of an NCA.  Staff has recommended that the Board 
>consider this threshold further as it continues 
>its related work on the NomCom Review and 
>improvement efforts. Additional ideas under 
>consideration include adding a voting threshold 
>for the approval of a charter for a PDP working group.
>
>Issue 5 – Implementation
>
>At its 28 August meeting, the Board directed the 
>GNSO Council to work with ICANN Staff on an 
>implementation plan that creates a transition to 
>a new bicameral voting structure by the 
>beginning of calendar year 2009. Board 
>discussion continues on how to ensure diversity 
>in each stakeholder group, whether specific 
>Board recommendations are needed to support 
>expansion and inclusiveness for new actors, and 
>whether the Board should encourage fostering 
>different representation.  Questions about 
>whether additional guidance or requirements are 
>needed on the implementation plan, and 
>transition to the new structure by January 2009, 
>also are being explored. Comments about this 
>time frame, the issues noted, or about 
>particular areas that might require special attention are most welcome.
>
>Thank you for your continued involvement and input.
>
>Regards,
>Denise
>
>--
>Denise Michel
>ICANN VP, Policy
><mailto:policy-staff at icann.org>policy-staff at icann.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Sept19-Final.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 35328 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20080926/e3f87eb5/attachment-0001.doc>