[council] Re: [liaison6c] Re: Input Requested on Council Restructuring

[Avri Doria]

Dear Denise,

Thank you for the research and the timely response.

a.

On 18 Sep 2008, at 22:55, Denise Michel wrote:

> Dear Community Members:
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Please let me know if you have questions or need additional  
> information.
>
> Regards,
> Denise
>
>
> -- 
> Denise Michel
> ICANN VP, Policy
> policy-staff at icann.org
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Denise Michel  
> <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 
> >). 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 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
> policy-staff at icann.org
>
>
>
>
>