[council] Constituency and council Seat was RE: Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

This is where the fair representation in the SG come in.

It is important that every entity that is a member of the SGs have a
voice in the SGs choices.  If a (person, view) has many supporters in
the SG, then that person with his or her view will be represented on the
council.  Giving automatic seats to a constituency means either that a
small constituency may get a disproportionately large voice, or that
constituencies will not be accepted until they are large enough, i.e
equivalent to a size worthy of a vote.  But if we wait until they are
large enough to merit a council seat, then we may exclude the voice of
constituency of small size but of emergent importance in voice.

It is also important to realize that within an SG, the same
entity/person may be a member of several constituencies.  It is only by
making choices for council at the SG level that will allow for non
duplication of voting power.  That is unless we are talking about making
a council wide rule that an entity/person can only participate in a
single constituency.  I never thought this was the case.

a.


a.


On Sun, 2009-04-05 at 12:30 -0400, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> Although it is correct that policy will be 
> formulated in working groups, it is also 
> important to remember that it is Council that 
> will be deciding what policies to look at and 
> formulating the charters of the working groups. 
> The inability to speak on Council may well mean 
> that the issues that are important to you do not 
> get raised to the level where there is a WG to participate in.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 05/04/2009 11:49 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 
> >Thank you Avri. That is my view, and the RrC view as well.
> >
> >In addition to Avri's well reasoned comments it is my impression that
> >under this new structure the Council will be serving more in a
> >management role, as had been envisioned from the beginning but not yet
> >executed on well. The Working Groups is where the real policy work will
> >take place, and where it will be important for *voices* to be heard. If
> >that is true, then new constituencies will have the same opportunity as
> >all existing ones in that regard. Otherwise, giving such weight to
> >having a Councilor, seems backsliding on an issue that the new structure
> >is meant to address.
> >
> >Tim
> >
> >   -------- Original Message --------
> >Subject: Re: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to
> >GNSO Restructure
> >From: Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
> >Date: Sat, April 04, 2009 10:47 pm
> >To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>,
> >policy-staff at icann.org
> >Cc: "liaison6c at gnso.icann.org" <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> >
> >
> >Denise,
> >
> >Thank you for the detailed note on the Staff's position on these issues.
> >
> >In this not I want tomake a few points on the issue concerning the
> >changes to X.3.1
> >
> >1. From the full report of the board (which is curiously difficult to
> >find on line: for those who need to get new copy it can be found at:
> >http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf
> >
> >)
> >The Board requests the Council, with
> >support from Staff, to prepare suggested changes to the Bylaws,
> >within six months, regarding the Council’s structure on the
> >basis of four broad stakeholder groups and voting practices
> >consistent with the principles outlined above.
> >
> >Thus unless the council agrees to the proposed amendments, they will not
> >constitute changes prepared by the council with the support of the
> >staff. In the case of the one council seat per constituency, I believe
> >the staff is advocating an position that can neither be warranted by the
> >Board recommendations nor by council decisions at this point. While the
> >recommendations made by the staff are appreciated as a starting point,
> >it is the GNSO council that must make the decisions. In reading your
> >discussion, I had the feeling you were presenting us with what you felt
> >was the only possible interpretation. I wish to take issue with this
> >assumption.
> >
> >2. I certainly see no language in the Board/BCG recommendations
> >requiring that each new constituency get a seat on the council. In fact
> >all of the discussions on seating in the council is at the SG level.
> >And my reading of the recommendations, as well as the length discussions
> >the council had with the BCG indicate the intention to de-link the seats
> >in the council from the constituency structure. Perhaps we will need to
> >get a ruling from the Board on this as it is difficult to proceed with
> >such diametrically opposed understandings on the board's decision. My
> >reading says that there is no direct linkage between the existence of a
> >constituency and a seat on the Council, though of course the SG has to
> >show that is is giving fair representation to all in the SG group -
> >whatever constituency they may be a member of or however many
> >constituencies they may be a member of.
> >
> >3. There was certainly no language indicating that once we got to more
> >then 6 constituencies in a non-contracted house or more then 3
> >constituencies in the contracted house that we would need to restructure
> >yet again. I hope that we are successful in bringing new
> >constituencies into the process, and I think that a well defined WG
> >process will aid in doing so. But if the by-law change you and your
> >staff advocate were to be advanced, I believe that pain of an additional
> >restructuring as well as the waste of time and effort it would
> >constitute would work as a disincentive to the acceptance on new
> >constituencies. It would be as hard to add the 4th constituency to one
> >of the contracted house as it was to add new constituencies before the
> >reorg we are suffering through at the moment. I believe that creating
> >disincentives for the creation on new constituency was definitely not
> >something the Board was intending in its decision.
> >
> >4. While it is true that the reason for constituting new constituencies
> >is to allow greater voice, given the function of the future council as a
> >management group, and given that voice is dependent on WG participation
> >and not council membership, the subject of voice and a council seat are
> >orthogonal to each other. Thus I do not believe that a requirement for
> >one council seat for each new constituency can be backed up by an
> >interpretation of the requirements for change made by the Board.
> >
> >5. Finally it is up to the stakeholders charters, as approved by the
> >board to determine the process by which seats are allocated - this is
> >explicit in the BCG recommendation. Each of the SG has been given the
> >opportunity to design a fair and comprehensive system for doing so. The
> >Board will review each of these SGs in order to determine whether they
> >do or not. It seems to me that the right of self determination by the
> >SGs with the advice and consent of the Board must not be abrogated by
> >Policy Staff fiat.
> >
> >thanks
> >
> >a.
> >
> >
> >
> >On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 11:31 -0700, Denise Michel wrote:
> > > Many thanks to all of you who have already commented on the draft
> > > revisions to the ICANN Bylaws relating to GNSO restructuring that were
> > > circulated late last week to start community discussion (also
> > > attached). Your emails were particularly useful in getting everyone
> > > to focus quickly on several specific issues. In this message, we’ll
> > > attempt to address a number of the specific comments made Friday and
> > > over the weekend to give you some background on our drafting thoughts
> > > to help further the dialogue.
> > >
> > > Article X:
> > >
> > > §3.1 Issue: This proposed Bylaws amendment assigns the
> > > responsibility for selecting Council representatives to the four
> > > Stakeholder Groups with the stipulation that each Board-recognized
> > > Constituency shall be allocated a minimum of one seat on the GNSO
> > > Council.
> > >
> > > This article seems to have garnered the most immediate attention and
> > > questions. Rather than prejudging this issue, Staff’s view was that
> > > this revision was entirely consistent with the GNSO Improvements
> > > Report, the Board’s resolution, and various Board discussions
> > > to-date. Existing constituency Council seats are currently hard-wired
> > > into the Bylaws and no Board member or Board committee has suggested
> > > to us that this be changed. As discussed in greater detail below,
> > > elements in the Board-approved GNSO Improvements Report and in Board
> > > resolutions suggest that the role of Constituencies within the GNSO
> > > continues to be significant and merits ongoing support in the Bylaws.
> > >
> > > 1. The GNSO Improvements Report produced by the Board Governance
> > > Committee (BGC) and endorsed by the Board last June emphasized the
> > > continued primacy of the Constituency structure as a fundamental
> > > building block of the GNSO. The Report did not attempt to change the
> > > existing Bylaws mechanisms by which the Board evaluates and approves
> > > GNSO Constituencies, but instead recommended that the process be more
> > > fluid, open, and accessible.
> > >
> > > In fact, the Report contains many references to expanding Constituency
> > > involvement in the GNSO by (a) encouraging new groups to form, (b)
> > > providing those structures with standard “tool kits†of administrative
> > > services, (c) evening “the playing field†among constituencies, (d)
> > > creating general best-practice guidelines to ensure consistent
> > > operational practices across different groups, and (e) assuring the
> > > community that transparency, openness and fairness remain fundamental
> > > ICANN principles. The Report specifically states that:
> > > “It should be noted that we view the new stakeholder structure
> > > primarily as a way to organize the Council. While it will also
> > > encourage the constituencies to maximize their common interests, it
> > > does not on its own change the constituency structure itself.†(Board
> > > GNSO Improvements Report, page 42).
> > >
> > > The ICANN Board, in its 1 October 2008 resolutions, reinforced its
> > > support for the following principles pertaining to the formation of
> > > the new Stakeholder Groups. The Board specifically requested that, in
> > > establishing the newly formed structures, all constituency members and
> > > other relevant parties comply with the Board’s principles including,
> > > “The inclusion of new actors/participants, where applicable, and the
> > > expansion of constituencies (emphasis added) within Stakeholder
> > > Groups, where applicable.â€
> > >
> > > The GNSO Improvements Report anticipated the creation of a lightly
> > > structured Stakeholder Group (SG) organizational layer to be inserted
> > > between Constituencies and the GNSO Council with a primary
> > > responsibility to select/allocate/apportion GNSO Council seats among
> > > its Constituency members. It did not anticipate the elimination of
> > > Constituencies in favor of Stakeholder Groups, although some in the
> > > community now suggest that Constituencies may no longer be necessary.
> > >
> > >
> > > Staff’s position is not new and, at the Board’s direction, Staff has
> > > made every effort to share its understanding with the community over
> > > the past six months through informal discussions with Constituency
> > > leaders and by providing sample organizational templates designed to:
> > > (a) help the community assess existing Constituency charters; (b)
> > > guide the development of potential new Constituency charters; and (c)
> > > assist community leaders as they fashioned new Stakeholder Group (SG)
> > > charters.
> > >
> > > 2. Second, among the stated goals of restructuring is to encourage
> > > the formation of new Constituencies to enhance the diversity of
> > > viewpoints in ICANN. As is true in the current Bylaws, Staff’s
> > > proposed amendment in this section continues to place the
> > > responsibility with the Board to determine if the viewpoint
> > > represented by the Constituency applicant is significant enough to be
> > > entitled to recognition and, thereby, a minimum of one Council seat.
> > >
> > > Based upon a few of the Stakeholder Group voting systems that have
> > > been submitted thus far, a newly approved Constituency may not gain a
> > > Council seat, which raises concerns about depriving the GNSO Council
> > > of the new voices that the Board formally recognizes. It is
> > > conceivable that, without the GNSO seat requirement, an incumbent
> > > interest group could control a Stakeholder Group and potentially
> > > prevent these new viewpoints from fully participating in the GNSO.
> > > Without the promise of being able to participate meaningfully at the
> > > Council level, Staff is concerned that prospective new organizations
> > > may not pursue the arduous tasks of organizing, petitioning, drafting
> > > a charter, and defending their viability in being formally recognized
> > > as a Constituency within the GNSO. Without Board protection in this
> > > potentially volatile and delicate vetting process, Constituencies in
> > > formation may cease to make the effort. If that reality should be
> > > allowed to unfold, the GNSO will have failed to achieve a vital
> > > element of the Board’s vision.
> > >
> > > It has been suggested that there should not be a hard-wiring of
> > > Constituencies to Council seats and seat allocation should be a
> > > Stakeholder Group responsibility. We agree that SGs should have that
> > > responsibility, although not without any constraints, and this is
> > > reflected in these proposed Bylaws to spur consideration and
> > > discussion. The current allocation of Council seats to Constituencies
> > > has been hard-wired since 2003. It does not seem inconsistent to
> > > accord a similar right to each prospective new Constituency that is
> > > Board-approved. (See Article XX below for discussion of what happens
> > > in the future should we reach a point where the number of
> > > Constituencies exceeds the number of Council seats.)
> > >
> > > 3. Third, as it relates to the non-contracted party house, the GNSO
> > > restructuring removed three seats (collectively) from the Commercial
> > > Constituencies and provided a new Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
> > > with six seats. The rationale for this shift was that this was
> > > appropriate because, with the proper outreach and recruitment
> > > activities, additional non-commercial Constituencies would be formed
> > > that would hold seats to represent different viewpoints on the GNSO
> > > Council.
> > > “…a new non-commercial Stakeholders Group must go far beyond the
> > > membership of the current Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC).
> > > We must consider educational, research, and philanthropic
> > > organizations, foundations, think tanks, members of academia,
> > > individual registrant groups and other non- commercial organizations,
> > > as well as individual registrants, as part of a non-commercial
> > > registrants Stakeholders Group.†(Board GNSO Improvements Report, page
> > > 32)
> > >
> > > Guaranteeing a Council seat to new Constituencies in this SG, which
> > > will have half of the Council’s non-contracted party seats, provides
> > > assurance that diverse viewpoints will be represented and heard on the
> > > Council.


...