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

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

Thanks Avri for the helpful contribution.  I added some responses below.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 2:03 PM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [liaison6c] Constituency and council Seat was RE: 
> Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure
> 
> 
> 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.

Chuck: Agreed.

>  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.

Chuck: Well said.

> 
> 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.

Chuck: My understanding in this regard is that the Board's intent is that 
individuals or organizations may participant in more than one SG or 
constituency or both but that they may only vote in one SG.

> 
> 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-repor
> > >t-03feb08.pdf
> > >
> > >)
> > >The Board requests the Council, with
> > >support from Staff, to prepare suggested changes to the Bylaws, 
> > >within six months, regarding the Council’s structure on 
> the 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, we’ll 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, 
> Staff’s view 
> > > > was that this revision was entirely consistent with the GNSO 
> > > > Improvements Report, the Board’s resolution, and 
> various Board 
> > > > discussions 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 services, (c) evening “the playing 
> > > > field†among constituencies, (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 
> > > > Board’s 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Staff’s position is not new and, at the Board’s direction, 
> > > > Staff 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, 
> Staff’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 Board’s 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 
> > > > 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 Council’s non-contracted party 
> > > > seats, provides assurance that diverse viewpoints will be 
> > > > represented and heard on the Council.
> 
> 
> ...
> 
>