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

["Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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