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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thought we should start trying to capture suggested changes in the
document. The attached is a red line with the following suggested
changes:

X.3.1

Deleted the restrictive language about all Constituencies being
allocated a Council seat.

X.3.3

Modified with a compromise to address Avri's concern. Just a suggestion,
not necessarily supported by the RrC yet.

X.3.6

Deleted the unnecessary and restrictive language regarding Board seat
selections.

X.3.8

No changes, but something we need to discuss further. There may be
advantages to allowing the Nominating Committee to make this assignment
based on criteria provided by the Council as a whole (for the Council
level NCA) and by criteria provided by each of the houses for their NCA
(but final criteria approved by the Council as a whole). That said, that
is just a personal observation for consideration, not an RrC position.

X.5.1

Modified to be consistent with reality, and the changes made to X.3.1.

XX.5.4

Modifed the timeline for the new Council to be as soon as practical
after Sydney, but no later than the commencement of the meeting in
October. Again, just a suggestion but this seems to be more realistic.

XX.5.5

Modified to be consistent with the changes in X.3.1 and X.5.1.

XX.5.11

Modified to be consistent with the changes to XX.5.4. The voting
thresholds will be in place when the new Council is seated, whenever
that may be.

XX.5.12

Modified to be consistent with the changes to XX.5.4.


Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to
GNSO Restructure
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, March 27, 2009 3:16 pm
To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


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.

Attachment: GNSO Council Restructure-Bylaws Changes (DRAFT) v2 28Mar09.doc
Description: MS-Word document