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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

For my comments on the following, please see my comments from earlier
today that I interspersed in response to Tim's suggested changes.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:17 PM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws 
> Relating to GNSO Restructure
> 
> 
> 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

Chuck: 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
>