<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] Re: [liaison6c] Re: Input Requested on Council Restructuring
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@xxxxxxxxx
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Denise Michel
<denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxx
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|