[At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG on GNSOCouncil Restructuring

Tue Jul 29 06:00:25 EDT 2008

Cheryl,

After having read the last WG output at

https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/at_large_advisory_
committee:20080729041513-0-3574/files/FinalReport-GNSO-ImprovementsWG.pd
f

it seems like the proposed GNSO restructuralization could be as follows
(Attachment A)

------------------------------
2 houses - contracted and non-contracted
           parties/constituencies, 2 parties
           in each house

House 1 - Contracted party house consists
          of 2 (registry and registrar) constituencies
House 2 - Non-contracted party house consists
          of 2 (commercial and non-commercial)
          parties/constituencies

that is, 4 parties/constituencies in both the houses collectively.

The GNSO Council (given that the lowest proposed number of members are
considered)

House 1
  Registries     - 3 members
  Registrars     - 3 members

House 2
  Commercial     - 5 members
  Non-commercial - 5 members

and also

Equal number of votes between registries and registrars.
Equal number of votes between commercial and non-commercial users.
------------------------------

Do I understand the proposal correctly, Cheryl?

If so, there is a question I could not find an answer to.

Q: What is the proposed number of votes for each of the four GNSO
Council parties?

Thanks

Dominik

-----Original Message-----
From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl
Langdon-Orr
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:06 AM
To: alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Cc: 'ALAC internal list'
Subject: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG on
GNSOCouncil Restructuring

At-Large.  please note that earlier today the ALAC Executive and our
representative on this WG Alan Greenberg, met and discussed our desire
to have a formal ALAC Statement to the Board on this matter.

Please see our Wiki page
https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee  to find
a link to the report of the WG  from this now completed process, and
also under Announcements to find an short background piece from the
report and  a note as to the mechanism for the ALAC to review our
sub-committee and Rep statement appended to it, to be endorsed (in an
expanded form if so desired) as an ALAC Statement to the Board.

ALAC  this serves as the start of the 7 day  minimum notice required for
a formal vote to be taken (between meetings) on this matter and in the
next 24hrs further background documents and proposed expansion of this
statement will be posted and a Big Pulse vote be created for the purpose
of recording your views to 1. Endorse the proposed document an ALAC
Statement, 2. Vote against the proposal or 3. Abstain.