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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

The text about one seat per constituency minimum in X.3.1 also raised
questions mark with me on first reading, but upon closer inspection I
thought the last paragraph of X.5.1 covered it.

But as it seems others have a concern with X.3.1, I would agree that
deleting the language in question would be a good solution.

Stéphane 


Le 28/03/09 12:43, « Tim Ruiz » <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 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.