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

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,
I too am puzzled (actually, disturbed) by this proposal to hardwire a
representative for each constituency into the Council irrespective of its
actual level of support in the SG and related considerations.  This is very
much a live issue at the moment, there's still an open public comment period
on how the SGs will be structured, and there has yet to be a structured and
systematic dialogue among the relevant parties about the pros and cons of
different approaches.  For our part, NCUC has put forward a proposal for the
NCSG that is supported by all but one person that would be much more
effective and democratic, and discussions in Mexico City with board members
led us to believe this matter would would be getting a reasoned hearing and
open dialogue down the line. Hence I'm a bit puzzled how staff could be
pre-judging the resolution at this point.

We will consult with our constituency on this and other aspects of the
proposal and circle back, but having already spelled out the problems with
this model, it is fair to say that that we would be strongly opposed to
going forward on this basis.

Thanks,

Bill

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>
>


-- 
***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute for International and
 Development Studies
 Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
***********************************************************