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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

A few question/comments on first reading.

-- X3.1

> Each Stakeholder Group may select representatives according to its
> Charter procedures subject to the provision that each Board-recognized
> Constituency shall be allocated a minimum of one seat on the GNSO
> Council. 

I question whether this is indeed in keeping with the intent of the
Board mandated changes as I thought they intended to break the direct
connection between constituencies and council seats.


X3.3

I think that this would possibly stifle an outside voice in one of the
houses.  I think that condition C should apply no matter what house a
NCA happens to be in.  If the aggrieved house cannot make its case to
the entire council then perhaps its grievance is not as 'for cause' as
they believe.

X3.6

I thought that this was still an open issue waiting board consideration.
As I described in the original report, I still believe that this will
lessen the legitimacy of the board member vis a vis the other members,
as this person would not have been elected by an SO but only by part of
an SO.

> 

x3.8


> and one voting member appointed by the ICANN Nominating Committee 

this read as if the Nomcom is going to determine which NCA sits where.
I would recommend removing removing the line from each of the paragraphs
and inserting:

c. One of the council members appointed by the ICANN Nominating
Committee will be serve as a voting member of each house


the way this is done would then be put in the Operating rules



x4.1

As mentioned above I think the last paragraph is not in keeping with the
Board's intent to separate seating on the council from constituency
existence.  If we do this, I believe we have negated one of the main
advantages to be gained from the separation of constituency from
stakeholder group.


thanks

a.