[liaison6c] RE: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Mar 30 00:33:50 UTC 2009
We can survive without a complete re-write of the
PDP process, but Annex A of the Bylaws *will*
have to change, at the very least to reflect
voting thresholds. Perhaps other places as well. Alan
At 29/03/2009 08:04 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>Jeff,
>
>Note that the Bylaws changes are supposed to
>only relate to the restructure of the Council to
>the new bicameral model and not to the broader
>GNSO improvements effort for which
>implementation plans are being developed by the
>work teams. It is true that the revised PDP
>will be a Bylaws issue but I don't believe that
>is included in this draft of Bylaws
>changes. The goal of this limited effort is to
>make sure that any Bylaws changes are in place
>before the Council moves to the bicameral model.
>
>Chuck
>
>
>----------
>From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us]
>Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 6:30 PM
>To: Gomes, Chuck; ken.bour at verizon.net;
>stephane.vangelder at indom.com;
>Margie.Milam at icann.org; council at gnso.icann.org; liaison6c at gnso.icann.org
>Subject: Re: [liaison6c] RE: [council] Draft
>Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure
>
>Speaking not as a councilor, but as one who is
>still on these lists. There are many questions
>still being addressed by the 5 work teams which
>seem to be (perhaps unintentionally) superseded
>by Staff's work. As the chair of one of the work
>teams, one of our agenda items to discuss within
>the team (notice I did not say council) what
>parts should be in the bylaws and what should be
>in rules of operation. Again that is dependent
>as Chuck said on how the rules of operation can be changed.
>
>I want to thank Staff for this work, but I fear
>this will be a distraction as opposed to an aid
>for the community in doing the work of the 5
>work teams. I again thank staff for doing some
>of this work, but I am afraid much of it was too
>premature. It is the community that needs to
>figure out how this will work, not the staff.
>
>Thanks.
>Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
>Vice President, Law & Policy
>NeuStar, Inc.
>Jeff.Neuman at neustar.biz
>
>
>----------
>From: owner-liaison6c at gnso.icann.org
>To: Ken Bour ; Stéphane Van Gelder ; Margie
>Milam ; council at gnso.icann.org ; liaison6c at gnso.icann.org
>Sent: Sun Mar 29 17:28:39 2009
>Subject: [liaison6c] RE: [council] Draft
>Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure
>
>I support the suggestion to move voting
>thresholds to the Rules but with a condition in
>the Rules that any changes to the thresholds
>requires a high voting bar (at least 60% of both
>houses) and that the Bylaws require Board
>approval of the Rules and any amendments to the
>Rules. In my opinion, the consensus reached on
>GNSO restructure was highly dependent on the
>interdependency of several elements of the
>restructure recommendations. In particular, the
>recommended thresholds were a very crucial part
>of the overall package that we agreed to, so if
>it is too easy to change those, it could
>compromise the whole set of recommendations.
>
>I do not agree that this document is almost
>ready. I think we have quite a bit of work to
>do still and this is much too important to
>rush. I am all for doing it quickly, but let's
>make sure we carefully deal with all the issues
>that are being identified. In that regard, I
>think it would be helpful if Staff prepared a
>document organized similar to what they have
>already done that integrates all the various
>comments including their source with each section.
>
>Chuck
>
>
>----------
>From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ken Bour
>Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 2:59 PM
>To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Margie Milam';
>council at gnso.icann.org; liaison6c at gnso.icann.org
>Subject: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN
>Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure
>
>Stéphane:
>
>
>
>Thank you for your prompt initiative and the
>supportive observations. Please see my embedded comments below.
>
>
>
>If there are any other questions, please
>continue to raise them. In the interest of
>time, we recognize and appreciate the Council’s
>active interest and remain committed to timely and thorough replies.
>
>
>
>Ken Bour
>
>
>
>From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
>Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 1:05 PM
>To: Margie Milam; council at gnso.icann.org; liaison6c at gnso.icann.org
>Subject: Re: [council] Draft Revisions to the
>ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure
>
>
>
>Margie,
>
>Thanks for sending these on. As we are so pushed
>for time, allow me to get the ball rolling on
>this discussion and make a few comments.
>
>Section 3. Article 1.
>Moving the “geographic regions goalposts” up
>from “no 2 members” to “no 3 members” seems like
>a sensible suggestion for those SGs with 6 Council members. I agree with it.
>
>[KAB: ] Staff appreciates your support of this provision.
>
>Section 3. Article 3.
>What’s your rationale for recommending that “vacancy rules” be moved to OR&Ps?
>
>[KAB: ] The only specific provision, in this
>section, deals with the removal of an NCA for
>cause and includes the actual voting
>thresholds. One of Staff’s sub-objectives in
>this re-drafting assignment was to eliminate
>any/all provisions that, in its judgment, could
>be more effectively accommodated within internal
>Council procedures. One area identified was
>detailed voting thresholds and another involved
>this topic of vacancies, removals, and
>resignations. Staff suggests that such
>provisions do not rise to the level of being
>required in ICANN-level legal Bylaws. In the
>event that new Council voting thresholds are
>added or modified, in the future, such changes
>could be accomplished locally versus requiring
>protracted formal Bylaws
>amendments. Similarly, procedures for handling
>Council vacancies, resignations, and other
>administrative matters seem more appropriate for OR&P vs. corporate Bylaws.
>
>Section 3. Article 7.
>Are there no voting thresholds for selecting the chair and vice-chairs?
>
>[KAB: ] Yes, there are bicameral house voting
>thresholds for these positions and, as discussed
>above, they will be prescribed in the Council’s
>OR&P currently under revision by the GNSO
>Operations Work Team (Ray Fassett, Chair) under
>the auspices of the Operations Steering
>Committee (OSC). The Council Chair election
>requires 60% of both houses and the Vice-Chair
>positions are prescribed in the following language, inserted below:
>
>“The GNSO Council shall also select two Vice
>Chairs, one elected from each of the two voting
>houses. If the Council Chair is elected from
>one of the houses, then the non-voting
>Council-Level Nominating Committee Appointee
>shall serve as one of the Vice Chairs in lieu of
>the Vice Chair from the house of the elected
>Chair. If the Chair is elected from one of the
>houses, that person shall retain his/her vote in that house.”
>
>Section 3. Article 8.
>I agree the voting threshold descriptions belong
>in the OR&Ps, but it would be helpful for our
>discussion of the bylaws to have a reminder of
>what they are. Can you provide a link to where they are please?
>
>[KAB: ] The voting thresholds originally
>prescribed by the Working Group on GNSO Council
>Restructuring (WG-GCR) contained both PDP and
>non-PDP elements. In this re-drafting
>exercise, Staff is recommending that they be
>parsed out as follows: the non-PDP voting
>thresholds will be contained in Council OR&P
>while the PDP thresholds will be included in
>Article XX–Transition until such time as the
>Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and PDP
>Work Team (Jeff Neumann, Chair) have completed
>deliberations and are prepared to recommend a
>formal revision to Annex A of the
>Bylaws. Since the PDP thresholds are currently
>specified in Annex A, which is not being revised
>as part of this restructuring effort, Staff
>recommends that the new PDP thresholds should be
>included in Article XX vs. Council
>OR&P. Article XX is a “transition” document
>only and, once the PDP voting thresholds are
>successfully relocated from Annex A to the
>Council OR&P (Staff’s recommendation), Article
>XX can be removed from the Bylaws in its
>entirety (assuming all other transition matters
>are completed). Below are the voting
>thresholds recast into the two groupings:
>
> Non-PDP:
>
>a) Elect Council Chair: requires 60% of both houses.
>
>b) Remove NCA for Cause: requires 75% of
>both houses (excluding the NCA subject to removal); subject to Board approval.
>
>c) All other GNSO Council Business
>(default): requires majority of both houses.
>
>
>
>PDP:
>
>a) Create an Issues Report: requires more
>than 25% vote of both houses or majority of one house.
>
>b) Initiate a PDP within Scope: requires
>more than 33% vote of both houses or more than 66% vote of one house.
>
>c) Initiate a PDP not within
>Scope: requires a vote of more than 75% of one
>house and a majority of the other house (“Super Majority”).
>
>d) Approve a PDP without a Super
>Majority: requires a majority of both houses
>and further requires that one representative of
>at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports.
>
>e) Approve a PDP with a Super
>Majority: requires greater than 75% majority in
>one house and majority in the other house.
>
>
>
>Apart from the points raised above, I think this
>document is already very near completion. Having
>seen it, I must admit I feel a lot more
>confident that we can move ahead with sufficient
>speed to meet the deadlines set in your email
>for our review of these proposed bylaws.
>Congratulations on a well-written document.
>
>
>
>[KAB: ] Staff appreciates the compliment and the
>vote of confidence toward a successful June Council seating. Thank you!
>
>
>
>Stéphane
>
>
>Le 27/03/09 00:34, « Margie Milam »
><<Margie.Milam at icann.htm>Margie.Milam at icann.org> a écrit :
>
>Dear All,
>
>As discussed in today’s GNSO call, ICANN Staff
>has prepared Draft Bylaws Revisions (attached)
>that contain Staff recommendations for changes
>relating to the GNSO restructure. They are
>intended to serve as a starting point for the GNSO Council’s discussions.
>
>General Observations
>
>· These Bylaws were drafted to be
>consistent with Board recommendations as to structure and principles.
>
>· Staff also attempted to build in
>flexibility to accommodate changes in the future
>without requiring Bylaws amendments. For
>example, Staff recommends that some issues be
>moved from the Bylaws to GNSO Council Operating
>Rules and Procedures that would be approved by the Board.
>
>· Since the Board approved improvements
>did not provide specific details with respect to
>all topics, ICANN staff developed
>recommendations to address these gaps, which are
>contained in footnotes throughout the document.
>
>· The Draft Bylaws Revisions are subject
>to review by the ICANN Office of the General
>Counsel for legal form as well as consistency.
>
>· A few additional decisions will be
>needed to finalize these Bylaws, for
>example, Board approval of the unresolved open
>issue concerning Board seats 13 and 14, and
>further Council work on certain of the
>transition procedures (e.g. staggered terms, elections).
>
>
>
>Format of Revisions
>
>· To facilitate reviewing these changes,
>the Draft Bylaws is organized as a side-by-side
>comparison of the current language and the proposed language.
>
>· The yellow highlighted text refers to
>new or substantially revised language compared to the current Bylaws.
>
>· The footnotes include rationale
>statements where Staff thought an explanation might be helpful.
>
>
>Next Steps and Timing
>
>· The GNSO Council will need to decide
>how it would like to review the Draft Bylaws to develop its recommendations.
>
>· ICANN Staff will be working with the
>GNSO Operations Work Team in developing the GNSO
>Operating Rules and Procedures to incorporate
>those improvements that were omitted from the
>Bylaws in order to provide flexibility.
>
>· In order to seat the new Council by
>June, the Board would need to approve of the
>revisions by no later than its May 21st meeting.
>
>· A public comment period would need to
>take place before the May 21st meeting.
>
>· The Council would need to complete its
>review/analysis by the next GNSO council meeting
>on April 16th in order to accommodate the public comment period.
>
>· Due to this short time period, the GNSO
>Council is currently evaluating the most effective way to proceed.
>
>
>
>Finally, ICANN Staff is available to provide
>background and additional information on the
>Draft Bylaws Revisions if it would be helpful for your review.
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>
>
>Margie Milam
>
>Senior Policy Counselor
>
>ICANN
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20090329/bda919c3/attachment.html>
More information about the council
mailing list