RE: [liaison6c] RE: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The voting thresholds are for the bicameral Council, not the SGs.  It will be 
up to the SGs to inform their Council reps how to vote on the Council.  The 
GNSO Operations work team is tasked with developing revised Rules of Procedure 
for the Council and proposing those to the Council for consideration.  That of 
course will involve full community input.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:49 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx; stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; 
Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [liaison6c] RE: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN 
Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure
        
        

        We are not revisiting those, but there are still so many unanswered 
questions even around the voting thresholds (i.e., does voting results mean of 
those present or does it mean of those in the stakeholder group as a whole) 
that need to be explored and some believe that we should not implement any new 
thresholds until these questions are answered by the community.  In any case, 
it is a subject for the work teams to consider (as opposed to just the Council).

         

        Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.: NeuStar, Inc.
        Vice President, Law & Policy 
        
        

        
________________________________


        The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for 
the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or 
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received 
this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or 
copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original 
message.

         

         

        From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:32 AM
        To: Neuman, Jeff; ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx; stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; 
Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [liaison6c] RE: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN 
Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure

         

        Jeff,

         

        I think we need to separate the voting thresholds from the PDP work, at 
least for now.  That would not necessarily mean that the thresholds could not 
be revisited later if I problem was discovered relative to the revised PDP but 
I would hope that that is an unlikely possibility. A lot of community thought 
already went into the thresholds and I don't think it is a good idea to start 
that over.

         

        Chuck

                 

________________________________

                From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
                Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 9:25 PM
                To: Gomes, Chuck; ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                Subject: RE: [liaison6c] RE: [council] Draft Revisions to the 
ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure

                I was reading Section 11 in the document (reprinted below) that 
jumped out at me.  The reason I made my comments was because one of the issues 
that the work team was discussing was what needed to be accomplished prior to 
the June date as opposed to after.  It was also up for discussion as to what 
would happen with the PDP if everything were not completed.  The assumption 
some had in the group was that even if the GNSO divided into Stakeholder Groups 
at the June date, the PDP may very well be unaltered until such time as the 
Work Team/Council and Board felt the changes could be implemented.  But this 
seems to envision a piece meal adoption of a new PDP (namely adopting the 
voting thresholds with no explanation or context until other pieces could be 
(if ever) adopted)).  

                 

                The registries and registrars may not like changing the PDP in 
this piecemeal fashion since it would affect how consensus policies are 
developed.  I also fear that we (the Work Team/Council/Staff)  could get bogged 
down in discussing what should happen at transition date and never get to the 
ultimate substance (the redesign of the PDP as a whole).

                 

                I do not view this issue as a GNSO council issue, but rather as 
a community issue that at the very least the work team will need to address.  

                 

                11. In the absence of further action by the Board to modify or 
amend Annex A to these Bylaws and/or this Transition Article XX, Section 5, the 
newly seated GNSO Council will utilize the following voting thresholds for all 
policy development activity conducted commencing with the ICANN meeting in June 
2009[1]:  

                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. 

                 

                 

                Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.: NeuStar, Inc.
                Vice President, Law & Policy 

                
________________________________


                The information contained in this e-mail message is intended 
only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have 
received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, 
distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete 
the original message.

                 

                 

                From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
                Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 8:05 PM
                To: Neuman, Jeff; ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                Subject: RE: [liaison6c] RE: [council] Draft Revisions to the 
ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure

                 

                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@xxxxxxxxxx] 
                        Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 6:30 PM
                        To: Gomes, Chuck; ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                        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@xxxxxxxxxxx 

________________________________

                        From: owner-liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
                        To: Ken Bour ; Stéphane Van Gelder ; Margie Milam ; 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
                        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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ken Bour
                                Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 2:59 PM
                                To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Margie Milam'; 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                                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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
                                Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 1:05 PM
                                To: Margie Milam; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                                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@xxxxxxxxx> 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 
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                 
                                 
                                 

                
                

________________________________


________________________________

        [1] Note: The PPSC's PDP Team may recommend rewording the voting 
thresholds.