<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16705" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=390521023-18092008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Denise,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=390521023-18092008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=390521023-18092008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I have one more question. If the Council
restructuring is not complete until April 2009, we also need to deal with chair
and vice chair elections. My understanding from Glen is that the terms of
Avri and myself end on 31 January 2009. What are Staff's
recommendations in this regard? Note that Avri's seat on the Council is
scheduled to end at the end of the Annual Meeting in 2009 and it is proposed
under the new structure that there be two vice chairs, one from each
house.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=390521023-18092008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=390521023-18092008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Chuck</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> owner-liaison6c@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-liaison6c@gnso.icann.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Gomes,
Chuck<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, September 18, 2008 5:56 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
denise.michel@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org; liaison6c<BR><B>Cc:</B>
Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Alan Greenberg; Janis Karklins; Bertrand de La Chapelle;
Robert Hoggarth<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [liaison6c] Re: Input Requested on
Council Restructuring<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=593442821-18092008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Thanks Denise.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=593442821-18092008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=593442821-18092008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I have one question regarding the Staff recommendation
"<FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>that the various GNSO
constituencies proceed with their normal nomination and election processes for
two primary reasons.</FONT>" Does this mean that constituencies should
elect Councilors for full terms? That may work for the Registries and
Registrars because the number of Council seats will be unchanged in the new
bicameral structure for their respective stakeholder groups. But it
might create a problem for the two user stakeholder groups, especially for the
commercial stakeholder group because of the reduction in
seats.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=593442821-18092008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=593442821-18092008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>In cases where the number of seats will change, it seems
to me like it would be important that all parties involved to understand that
'<FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>normal nomination and
election processes</FONT>' may happen but there should be awareness up front
that terms may be adjusted for some seats once the new structure is
implemented.*</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=593442821-18092008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=593442821-18092008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>In previous Staff communications, it was stated that new
stakeholder groups would need to submit proposals to the Board for seating of
Council representatives NLT 2 December 2008. I assume that a new date
will be communicated shortly.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=593442821-18092008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=593442821-18092008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Chuck</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=593442821-18092008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=593442821-18092008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>* Note that I discussed this issue with Rob in a
call that he and I had earlier this afternoon, so he may already be working on
it.</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> owner-liaison6c@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-liaison6c@gnso.icann.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Denise
Michel<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, September 18, 2008 4:55 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
council@gnso.icann.org; liaison6c<BR><B>Cc:</B> Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Alan
Greenberg; Janis Karklins; Bertrand de La Chapelle<BR><B>Subject:</B>
[liaison6c] Re: Input Requested on Council
Restructuring<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Dear Community Members:<BR><BR>As previously noted, some
constituency representatives have expressed concerns about the need to act
quickly because they have incumbent GNSO Council members whose terms expire
during the Cairo ICANN meeting. It has been suggested that constituencies
should have the option to extend the terms of their existing
representatives, if needed, until January 2009. <BR><BR>We have
consulted the ICANN bylaws, discussed the matter with ICANN's General
Counsel and noted comments from various constituency representatives
regarding the timing of the implementation effort necessary to seat the
newly restructured GNSO Council by the January deadline. As a result
of those interactions Staff recommends that the various GNSO constituencies
proceed with their normal nomination and election processes for two primary
reasons. First, formal modification of the ICANN Bylaws to expressly
permit term extensions for current Council representatives would likely take
as long to accomplish as the transition period and, at the very least, would
not be resolved until after the GNSO Council meeting in Cairo. Second, based
on initial constituency feedback and Staff's review of the myriad of
implementation challenges that must be overcome to achieve a January
transition date for the newly structured Council, Staff will be recommending
that the Board extend the transition time to the new structure until at
least April 2009. <BR><BR>Please let me know if you have questions or need
additional information. <BR><BR>Regards,<BR>Denise<BR><BR><BR>--
<BR>Denise Michel<BR>ICANN VP, Policy <BR><A
href="mailto:policy-staff@icann.org"
target=_blank>policy-staff@icann.org</A><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Denise Michel <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:denise.michel@icann.org">denise.michel@icann.org</A>></SPAN>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV>Dear GNSO Community Leaders:<BR><BR>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 <<A
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05417.html"
target=_blank>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05417.html</A>>).
The Board directed that a transition to this new structure be accomplished
by January 2009.<BR><BR>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.)<BR><BR><B>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). <U>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.</U><BR><BR><U>Any
group intending to contribute comments should submit them to me via email
to <A href="mailto:policy-staff@icann.org"
target=_blank>policy-staff@icann.org</A> by COB on 18 September
(PDT).</U> </B> 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.<BR><BR>Issue 1 – Role of the Third
NCA:<BR><BR>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; <BR><BR>Issue 2 – Council
Leadership; Election of GNSO Council Chair <BR><BR>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). <BR><BR>Issue 3 - Election of Board Seats<BR><BR>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). <BR> <BR>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). <BR><BR>Issue 4 – Voting
Thresholds:<BR>
<OL>
<LI>"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 <BR>
<LI>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
<LI>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
<LI>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
<LI>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
<LI>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].
<LI>All other GNSO Business (other than Board elections) – simple
majority of both voting houses."</LI></OL><BR></DIV>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. <BR>
<DIV><BR>Issue 5 – Implementation<BR><BR>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.
<BR><BR>Thank you for your continued involvement and input.
<BR><BR>Regards,<BR>Denise<BR><BR>-- <BR>Denise Michel<BR>ICANN VP, Policy
<BR><A href="mailto:policy-staff@icann.org"
target=_blank>policy-staff@icann.org</A><BR><BR><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR
clear=all><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>