[council] RE: [liaison6c] Constituency and council Seat was RE: Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure

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

I totally agree that how Councilors are selected is extremely important but I 
do not think that that means that every constituency must be guaranteed a seat 
on the Council, nor am I concluding that Alan is advocating that.  Guaranteeing 
every constituency a seat on the Council would not scale and would require 
ongoing adjustments to how Councilors are selected.  

I also agree that the process of selecting Councilors must be 'fair' however 
that is defined and I firmly believe that that can happen at the SG level.  
After all, the Board will approve SG charters, which I assume will have to 
include Councilor selection procedures, so there will be a check on fairness.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 3:16 PM
> To: avri@xxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [liaison6c] Constituency and council Seat was 
> RE: Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure
> 
> 
> If only we had an absolute measure of "fair".
> 
> I wasn't proposing one rule or another, but wanted to point 
> out that Council composition (and how Councillors are 
> selected) DOES matter, even if policy is developed at the WG level.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 05/04/2009 02:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> >Hi,
> >
> >This is where the fair representation in the SG come in.
> >
> >It is important that every entity that is a member of the SGs have a 
> >voice in the SGs choices.  If a (person, view) has many 
> supporters in 
> >the SG, then that person with his or her view will be represented on 
> >the council.  Giving automatic seats to a constituency means either 
> >that a small constituency may get a disproportionately large 
> voice, or 
> >that constituencies will not be accepted until they are 
> large enough, 
> >i.e equivalent to a size worthy of a vote.  But if we wait 
> until they 
> >are large enough to merit a council seat, then we may 
> exclude the voice 
> >of constituency of small size but of emergent importance in voice.
> >
> >It is also important to realize that within an SG, the same 
> >entity/person may be a member of several constituencies.  It 
> is only by 
> >making choices for council at the SG level that will allow for non 
> >duplication of voting power.  That is unless we are talking about 
> >making a council wide rule that an entity/person can only 
> participate 
> >in a single constituency.  I never thought this was the case.
> >
> >a.
> >
> >
> >a.
> >
> >
> >On Sun, 2009-04-05 at 12:30 -0400, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> > > Although it is correct that policy will be formulated in working 
> > > groups, it is also important to remember that it is Council that 
> > > will be deciding what policies to look at and formulating the 
> > > charters of the working groups.
> > > The inability to speak on Council may well mean that the 
> issues that 
> > > are important to you do not get raised to the level where 
> there is a 
> > > WG to participate in.
> > >
> > > Alan
> > >
> > > At 05/04/2009 11:49 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> > >
> > > >Thank you Avri. That is my view, and the RrC view as well.
> > > >
> > > >In addition to Avri's well reasoned comments it is my impression 
> > > >that under this new structure the Council will be 
> serving more in a 
> > > >management role, as had been envisioned from the 
> beginning but not 
> > > >yet executed on well. The Working Groups is where the 
> real policy 
> > > >work will take place, and where it will be important for 
> *voices* 
> > > >to be heard. If that is true, then new constituencies 
> will have the 
> > > >same opportunity as all existing ones in that regard. Otherwise, 
> > > >giving such weight to having a Councilor, seems 
> backsliding on an 
> > > >issue that the new structure is meant to address.
> > > >
> > > >Tim
> > > >
> > > >   -------- Original Message --------
> > > >Subject: Re: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN 
> Bylaws Relating 
> > > >to GNSO Restructure
> > > >From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> > > >Date: Sat, April 04, 2009 10:47 pm
> > > >To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
> > > >policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx
> > > >Cc: "liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Denise,
> > > >
> > > >Thank you for the detailed note on the Staff's position 
> on these issues.
> > > >
> > > >In this not I want tomake a few points on the issue 
> concerning the 
> > > >changes to X.3.1
> > > >
> > > >1. From the full report of the board (which is curiously 
> difficult 
> > > >to find on line: for those who need to get new copy it 
> can be found at:
> > > >http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements
> > /gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf
> > > >
> > > >)
> > > >The Board requests the Council, with support from Staff, 
> to prepare 
> > > >suggested changes to the Bylaws, within six months, 
> regarding the 
> > > >Council̢۪s structure on the
> >e
> > > >basis of four broad stakeholder groups and voting practices 
> > > >consistent with the principles outlined above.
> > > >
> > > >Thus unless the council agrees to the proposed amendments, they 
> > > >will not constitute changes prepared by the council with the 
> > > >support of the staff. In the case of the one council seat per 
> > > >constituency, I believe the staff is advocating an position that 
> > > >can neither be warranted by the Board recommendations nor by 
> > > >council decisions at this point. While the 
> recommendations made by 
> > > >the staff are appreciated as a starting point, it is the GNSO 
> > > >council that must make the decisions. In reading your 
> discussion, I 
> > > >had the feeling you were presenting us with what you 
> felt was the 
> > > >only possible interpretation. I wish to take issue with 
> this assumption.
> > > >
> > > >2. I certainly see no language in the Board/BCG recommendations 
> > > >requiring that each new constituency get a seat on the 
> council. In 
> > > >fact all of the discussions on seating in the council is 
> at the SG level.
> > > >And my reading of the recommendations, as well as the length 
> > > >discussions the council had with the BCG indicate the 
> intention to 
> > > >de-link the seats in the council from the constituency 
> structure. 
> > > >Perhaps we will need to get a ruling from the Board on 
> this as it 
> > > >is difficult to proceed with such diametrically opposed 
> > > >understandings on the board's decision. My reading says 
> that there 
> > > >is no direct linkage between the existence of a 
> constituency and a 
> > > >seat on the Council, though of course the SG has to show 
> that is is 
> > > >giving fair representation to all in the SG group - whatever 
> > > >constituency they may be a member of or however many 
> constituencies they may be a member of.
> > > >
> > > >3. There was certainly no language indicating that once 
> we got to 
> > > >more then 6 constituencies in a non-contracted house or 
> more then 3 
> > > >constituencies in the contracted house that we would need to 
> > > >restructure yet again. I hope that we are successful in bringing 
> > > >new constituencies into the process, and I think that a well 
> > > >defined WG process will aid in doing so. But if the 
> by-law change 
> > > >you and your staff advocate were to be advanced, I believe that 
> > > >pain of an additional restructuring as well as the waste of time 
> > > >and effort it would constitute would work as a 
> disincentive to the 
> > > >acceptance on new constituencies. It would be as hard to add the 
> > > >4th constituency to one of the contracted house as it was to add 
> > > >new constituencies before the reorg we are suffering 
> through at the 
> > > >moment. I believe that creating disincentives for the 
> creation on 
> > > >new constituency was definitely not something the Board 
> was intending in its decision.
> > > >
> > > >4. While it is true that the reason for constituting new 
> > > >constituencies is to allow greater voice, given the 
> function of the 
> > > >future council as a management group, and given that voice is 
> > > >dependent on WG participation and not council membership, the 
> > > >subject of voice and a council seat are orthogonal to 
> each other. 
> > > >Thus I do not believe that a requirement for one council 
> seat for 
> > > >each new constituency can be backed up by an 
> interpretation of the requirements for change made by the Board.
> > > >
> > > >5. Finally it is up to the stakeholders charters, as approved by 
> > > >the board to determine the process by which seats are 
> allocated - 
> > > >this is explicit in the BCG recommendation. Each of the 
> SG has been 
> > > >given the opportunity to design a fair and comprehensive 
> system for 
> > > >doing so. The Board will review each of these SGs in order to 
> > > >determine whether they do or not. It seems to me that 
> the right of 
> > > >self determination by the SGs with the advice and consent of the 
> > > >Board must not be abrogated by Policy Staff fiat.
> > > >
> > > >thanks
> > > >
> > > >a.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 11:31 -0700, Denise Michel wrote:
> > > > > Many thanks to all of you who have already commented on the 
> > > > > draft revisions to the ICANN Bylaws relating to GNSO 
> > > > > restructuring that were circulated late last week to start 
> > > > > community discussion (also attached). Your emails were 
> > > > > particularly useful in getting everyone to focus quickly on 
> > > > > several specific issues. In this message, we̢۪ll
> >l
> > > > > attempt to address a number of the specific comments 
> made Friday 
> > > > > and over the weekend to give you some background on 
> our drafting 
> > > > > thoughts to help further the dialogue.
> > > > >
> > > > > Article X:
> > > > >
> > > > > §3.1 Issue: This proposed Bylaws amendment assigns the 
> > > > > responsibility for selecting Council representatives 
> to the four 
> > > > > Stakeholder Groups with the stipulation that each 
> > > > > Board-recognized Constituency shall be allocated a minimum of 
> > > > > one seat on the GNSO Council.
> > > > >
> > > > > This article seems to have garnered the most 
> immediate attention 
> > > > > and questions. Rather than prejudging this issue, Staff̢۪s 
> > > > > view was that
> >t
> > > > > this revision was entirely consistent with the GNSO 
> Improvements 
> > > > > Report, the Board̢۪s resolution, and various Board 
> discussions
> >s
> > > > > to-date. Existing constituency Council seats are currently 
> > > > > hard-wired into the Bylaws and no Board member or Board 
> > > > > committee has suggested to us that this be changed. 
> As discussed 
> > > > > in greater detail below, elements in the Board-approved GNSO 
> > > > > Improvements Report and in Board resolutions suggest that the 
> > > > > role of Constituencies within the GNSO continues to 
> be significant and merits ongoing support in the Bylaws.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. The GNSO Improvements Report produced by the Board 
> Governance 
> > > > > Committee (BGC) and endorsed by the Board last June 
> emphasized 
> > > > > the continued primacy of the Constituency structure as a 
> > > > > fundamental building block of the GNSO. The Report did not 
> > > > > attempt to change the existing Bylaws mechanisms by which the 
> > > > > Board evaluates and approves GNSO Constituencies, but instead 
> > > > > recommended that the process be more fluid, open, and 
> accessible.
> > > > >
> > > > > In fact, the Report contains many references to expanding 
> > > > > Constituency involvement in the GNSO by (a) encouraging new 
> > > > > groups to form, (b) providing those structures with standard
> > “tool kits†of administrative
> >ve
> > > > > services, (c) evening “the playing
> > field†among constituencies, (d)
> >d)
> > > > > creating general best-practice guidelines to ensure 
> consistent 
> > > > > operational practices across different groups, and 
> (e) assuring 
> > > > > the community that transparency, openness and fairness remain 
> > > > > fundamental ICANN principles. The Report specifically 
> states that:
> > > > > “It should be noted that we view the new stakeholder 
> > > > > structure
> >
> > > > > primarily as a way to organize the Council. While it 
> will also 
> > > > > encourage the constituencies to maximize their common 
> interests, 
> > > > > it does not on its own change the constituency structure 
> > > > > itself.†(Board GNSO Improvements Report, page 42).
> > > > >
> > > > > The ICANN Board, in its 1 October 2008 resolutions, 
> reinforced 
> > > > > its support for the following principles pertaining to the 
> > > > > formation of the new Stakeholder Groups. The Board 
> specifically 
> > > > > requested that, in establishing the newly formed 
> structures, all 
> > > > > constituency members and other relevant parties 
> comply with the 
> > > > > Board̢۪s principles including,
> >,
> > > > > “The inclusion of new actors/participants, where 
> applicable, 
> > > > > and the
> >
> > > > > expansion of constituencies (emphasis added) within 
> Stakeholder 
> > > > > Groups, where applicable.â€
> > > > >
> > > > > The GNSO Improvements Report anticipated the creation of a 
> > > > > lightly structured Stakeholder Group (SG) 
> organizational layer 
> > > > > to be inserted between Constituencies and the GNSO 
> Council with 
> > > > > a primary responsibility to select/allocate/apportion GNSO 
> > > > > Council seats among its Constituency members. It did not 
> > > > > anticipate the elimination of Constituencies in favor of 
> > > > > Stakeholder Groups, although some in the community 
> now suggest that Constituencies may no longer be necessary.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Staff̢۪s position is not new and, at
> > the Board̢۪s direction, Staff has
> >f has
> > > > > made every effort to share its understanding with the 
> community 
> > > > > over the past six months through informal discussions with 
> > > > > Constituency leaders and by providing sample 
> organizational templates designed to:
> > > > > (a) help the community assess existing Constituency charters; 
> > > > > (b) guide the development of potential new Constituency 
> > > > > charters; and (c) assist community leaders as they 
> fashioned new 
> > > > > Stakeholder Group (SG) charters.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Second, among the stated goals of restructuring is to 
> > > > > encourage the formation of new Constituencies to enhance the 
> > > > > diversity of viewpoints in ICANN. As is true in the current 
> > > > > Bylaws, Staff̢۪s
> >s
> > > > > proposed amendment in this section continues to place the 
> > > > > responsibility with the Board to determine if the viewpoint 
> > > > > represented by the Constituency applicant is 
> significant enough 
> > > > > to be entitled to recognition and, thereby, a minimum 
> of one Council seat.
> > > > >
> > > > > Based upon a few of the Stakeholder Group voting systems that 
> > > > > have been submitted thus far, a newly approved 
> Constituency may 
> > > > > not gain a Council seat, which raises concerns about 
> depriving 
> > > > > the GNSO Council of the new voices that the Board formally 
> > > > > recognizes. It is conceivable that, without the GNSO seat 
> > > > > requirement, an incumbent interest group could control a 
> > > > > Stakeholder Group and potentially prevent these new 
> viewpoints from fully participating in the GNSO.
> > > > > Without the promise of being able to participate 
> meaningfully at 
> > > > > the Council level, Staff is concerned that prospective new 
> > > > > organizations may not pursue the arduous tasks of organizing, 
> > > > > petitioning, drafting a charter, and defending their 
> viability 
> > > > > in being formally recognized as a Constituency within 
> the GNSO. 
> > > > > Without Board protection in this potentially volatile and 
> > > > > delicate vetting process, Constituencies in formation 
> may cease 
> > > > > to make the effort. If that reality should be allowed 
> to unfold, 
> > > > > the GNSO will have failed to achieve a vital element 
> of the Board̢۪s vision.
> >.
> > > > >
> > > > > It has been suggested that there should not be a 
> hard-wiring of 
> > > > > Constituencies to Council seats and seat allocation 
> should be a 
> > > > > Stakeholder Group responsibility. We agree that SGs 
> should have 
> > > > > that responsibility, although not without any 
> constraints, and 
> > > > > this is reflected in these proposed Bylaws to spur 
> consideration 
> > > > > and discussion. The current allocation of Council seats to 
> > > > > Constituencies has been hard-wired since 2003. It 
> does not seem 
> > > > > inconsistent to accord a similar right to each 
> prospective new 
> > > > > Constituency that is Board-approved. (See Article XX 
> below for 
> > > > > discussion of what happens in the future should we 
> reach a point 
> > > > > where the number of Constituencies exceeds the number 
> of Council 
> > > > > seats.)
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Third, as it relates to the non-contracted party 
> house, the 
> > > > > GNSO restructuring removed three seats (collectively) 
> from the 
> > > > > Commercial Constituencies and provided a new Non-Commercial 
> > > > > Stakeholder Group with six seats. The rationale for 
> this shift 
> > > > > was that this was appropriate because, with the 
> proper outreach 
> > > > > and recruitment activities, additional non-commercial 
> > > > > Constituencies would be formed that would hold seats to 
> > > > > represent different viewpoints on the GNSO Council.
> > > > > “…a new non-commercial Stakeholders Group must go 
> far beyond 
> > > > > the
> >he
> > > > > membership of the current Non-Commercial Users 
> Constituency (NCUC).
> > > > > We must consider educational, research, and philanthropic 
> > > > > organizations, foundations, think tanks, members of academia, 
> > > > > individual registrant groups and other non- commercial 
> > > > > organizations, as well as individual registrants, as 
> part of a 
> > > > > non-commercial registrants Stakeholders Group.†(Board
> > GNSO Improvements Report, page
> > > > > 32)
> > > > >
> > > > > Guaranteeing a Council seat to new Constituencies in this SG, 
> > > > > which will have half of the Council̢۪s non-contracted party 
> > > > > seats, provides
> >s
> > > > > assurance that diverse viewpoints will be represented 
> and heard 
> > > > > on the Council.
> >
> >
> >...
> 
> 
> 
>