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

Thu Sep 18 21:55:45 UTC 2008

Thanks Denise.

I have one question regarding the Staff recommendation "that the various
GNSO constituencies proceed with their normal nomination and election
processes for two primary reasons."  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.

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 'normal
nomination and election processes' may happen but there should be
awareness up front that terms may be adjusted for some seats once the
new structure is implemented.*

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.

Chuck

* 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.

________________________________

	From: owner-liaison6c at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-liaison6c at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Denise Michel
	Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 4:55 PM
	To: council at gnso.icann.org; liaison6c
	Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Alan Greenberg; Janis Karklins; Bertrand
de La Chapelle
	Subject: [liaison6c] Re: Input Requested on Council
Restructuring

	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:

		1.	"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  

		2.	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 
		3.	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

		4.	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  
		5.	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  
		6.	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]. 
		7.	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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20080918/eefaac5c/attachment.html>