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

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

Thanks Stephan.  Sorry I misunderstood.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 6:13 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Tim Ruiz; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws 
> Relating to GNSO Restructure
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> I agree with you, which is what I was saying in my previous 
> email. It would simply be better to delete the whole X.3.1 
> text that we all seem to have some kind of issue with altogether.
> 
> So instead of having: 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. 
> No individual representative...
> 
> We would have: Each Stakeholder Group may select 
> representatives according to its Charter procedures. No 
> individual representative...
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> Le 29/03/09 21:55, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 
> > Stephane,
> > 
> > The last sentence of X.5.1 says, "When the number of 
> Board-recognized 
> > Constituencies reaches three in any Stakeholder Group with three 
> > Council seats or six in any Stakeholder Group with six 
> Council Seats, 
> > the Board will consider any structural or procedural 
> changes that may 
> > be appropriate to ensure that the GNSO Council may continue to 
> > accommodate additional Constituencies consistent with the 
> principles and provisions of these Bylaws."
> > Unless I am missing something here, which is certainly 
> possible, this 
> > sets of an ongoing need for Board review everytime the number of 
> > constituencies impacts the assignment of Council seats.  
> That doesn't 
> > scale very well in my mind.  Why not just delete the sentence and 
> > allow SG charters to cover this, recognizing that the 
> charters require Board approval?
> > 
> > Chuck
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van 
> >> Gelder
> >> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 3:20 PM
> >> To: Tim Ruiz; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws 
> Relating 
> >> to GNSO Restructure
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 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.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> 
> 
>