<!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=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></BODY></HTML>