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

[Dominik Filipp]

Alan,

Thank you for your answers.

So, if I understand well, according to the proposal and your explanation
the overall number of votes in the non-contracted stakeholder's group is
(always) greater than that of the contracted group. Am I right?

Thanks

Dominik


-----Original Message-----
From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan
Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:35 PM
To: alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: Re: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG
on GNSOCouncil Restructuring

Dominik, I'm not sure if Cheryl is still up, so let me try to answer
below.

I'm not sure when it was posted, but there is now a companion background
paper that may also make things clear. For those who are not very
familiar with the GNSO, it should be read  first. It can be found via
https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee.


At 29/07/2008 06:00 AM, Dominik Filipp wrote:
>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.p
>d
>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.

Yes. The term being used is 4 "Stakeholders Groups"



>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?

Yes.


>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?

The number of votes per Stakeholder group is the number of members they
have (3 or 5 in your example). All voting is within a house and then the
percentage of Yes votes in each house is used to decide if a motion has
passed or not. The actual number of votes in not used, except in certain
cases where a specific percentage must be reached AND a second rule
ensures that there is at least one vote in certain houses.

Because percentages are used instead of raw vote counts, the actual
number of councillors does not need to be the same, and no weighting is
needed. That is one of the results of the split-voting model.

Hope this helps, Alan


>Thanks
>
>Dominik



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

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org