Re: [council] some issues related to the idea of all terms ending on 23 October.

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Dear Margie,

Thank you for your explanations.

1. I had read that section and had not understood it, that is partly  
what I meant about the document needing further analysis.  I thought  
it was arguing for a restriction on the voting capability of the  
future council Chair and Vice Chairs.  And I did not understand this.   
In reading it I did not pick up that you were suggesting that someone  
who was no longer a member of the Council could still act as its  
Chair. I am not sure I personally believe this is possible or viable,  
but I thank you for the clarification.  Assuming it is legitimate vis  
a vis the Bylaws, it does become another possible scenario for the  
council to consider.  Has the legitimacy of a non council member, any  
non council member, serving as a non voting council chair been checked  
with legal counsel?
2. I am glad to read that the date which was defined as consistent  
with the bylaws is actually consistent with Staff interpretation of  
the bylaws and is something that is variable and is something that can  
be decided by the council in another manner consistent with the  
Bylaws.  I think that many council members will be interested in  
considering Chuck's proposal in this light.  In that scenario, it  
would be very much like a Board transition, were both old and new  
members are in attendance and the shift happens during the meeting  
itself.
3. Is there is there any information of how the term of an NCA in  
midterm would be handled in this case of discontinuity of terms?
thank you.

a.



On 28 Aug 2009, at 18:02, Margie Milam wrote:

> Dear GNSO Council Members:
>
> In response to Avri's most recent emails concerning the Restructure  
> Implementation Plan, I thought it would be useful to add some  
> relevant background along with Staff's rationale concerning certain  
> timing elements and Bylaws provisions.
> 1.	There is an important section of the plan document that was not  
> referenced in Avri's most recent email.  The draft Plan clearly  
> indicates that the Chair and Vice-Chair would continue in Seoul  
> precisely to manage the Council's transition.  These administrative  
> roles are described in the draft Restructuring Implementation Plan,  
> as follows:
> "GNSO Chair and Vice-Chair:  These positions will continue in an  
> administrative capacity until such time as the new GNSO Council  
> elects a Chair and two Vice-Chairs, one from each House.  Council  
> membership and voting privileges will be determined in accordance  
> with the provisions of this plan."
> The draft Plan intended to clarify that the incumbent GNSO Council  
> Chair and Vice Chair would be non-voting (unless otherwise elected  
> to the new Council); otherwise, we would have too many voting  
> Councilors in the bicameral structure (22 instead 20 members).  Due  
> to the unique and special circumstances of this transition, we  
> anticipated that travel funding for the Chair and Vice-Chairs, as  
> needed, would be approved by the ICANN Finance Department.
> 2.	As Avri noted in her first email, the Bylaws Amendments (Article  
> XX, Section 6), posted in August for public comment and approved at  
> the Board meeting this week, referenced the need for a Restructure  
> Implementation Plan:
> "The GNSO Council, as part of its Restructure Implementation Plan,  
> will document:  (a) how vacancies, if any, will be handled during  
> the transition period; (b) for each Stakeholder Group, how each  
> assigned Council seat to take effect at the 2009 ICANN annual  
> meeting will be filled, whether through a continuation of an  
> existing term or a new election or appointment; (c) how it plans to  
> address staggered terms such that the new GNSO Council preserves as  
> much continuity as reasonably possible; (d) the effect of Bylaws  
> term limits on each Council member."
> Staff understands that the Board Secretary will be posting a  
> preliminary report on the results of the Board meeting this week, so  
> you'll be able to confirm this information shortly.  In Staff's  
> view, the Bylaws anticipated the one-time shortening of existing  
> Councilor terms because the new Council was directed to take effect  
> "at the commencement of the ICANN meeting in Seoul or such other  
> date the board may designate by resolution."  Thus, by necessity,  
> Councilors' terms that were not continuing in the new Council would  
> have to terminate prior to the effective date of the new Council  
> seating.  If the GNSO Council believes that a date other than the  
> commencement of the ICANN meeting in Seoul is more appropriate, it  
> should identify that date and reflect it in the Plan along with the  
> details of a plan consistent with that recommendation.
> Hopefully this provides you with a fuller context concerning how  
> this draft proposal was constructed.  As Rob indicated, Staff's  
> intent was to provide the GNSO a starting point for its discussions  
> on finalizing the implementation details, recognizing that the  
> Council may recommend other approaches as appropriate.
> Best Regards,
>
> Margie
>
> ________________
>
> Margie Milam
> Senior Policy Counselor
> ICANN
> ________________
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> ] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 9:27 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: [council] some issues related to the idea of all terms  
> ending on 23 October.
>
> Hi,
>
> Prompted by the document sent by the Policy staff (I know it is from
> Rob, but I am assuming that its contents have the imprimatur of the
> Policy Staff leadership) I started thinking about the side effects of
> ending all terms on the 23 of October.  While I still maintain that it
> is not what the Bylaws mandate - always assuming that (for the purpose
> of this note) they still are as they were in the last draft - I could
> be proven wrong.  So it seemed worth looking at the possible wrinkle
> we have been presented with.
>
> 1. So that I have said it and it is out of the way, under those
> circumstances, I would no longer be a member of the council and
> consequently no longer be council chair.  While not having to travel
> to Seoul and donating one last week of my life to the GNSO council
> cause does have some side benefits, it also prevents me from doing
> what I think is my job which is to assist the council in a smooth
> transition and orderly hand over.
>
> However, I believe that no one is ever indispensable and certainly
> that applies to me.  This could be dealt with by making sure that both
> houses had elected their vice chairs on the Saturday (my suggestion in
> any case), as the Bylaws  provide for the vice-chairs to take the
> chair role  in the absence of a chair.
>
> Since the new council won't be seated until the 23rd they would not be
> able to elect a new chair until then.  Another possibility would be to
> schedule an actual voting meeting on the Saturday morning to either
> elect a temporary chair or the actual ongoing chair.  Chuck, who I
> assume would be re-chosen as a Council member by his SG to finish out
> his current time, would be able to chair that meeting until the new
> chair was elected.  Otherwise, the plan could proceed as I originally
> suggested with having the vote on the new chair as well as the vote on
> the new Council procedures as the first items of the Wednesday
> meeting.  If every council member is in attendance either in person on
> remotely for at least this part of the meeting, the election can be
> completed quickly - otherwise it can be continued as I originally
> suggested with a 24 absentee ballet and completed in time for the
> Thursday meeting.
>
> There may also be other solutions to this consequent of terminating
> all terms on the 23rd but it appears that replacing me as chair is
> fairly easy to work around if I am not longer on the council in Seoul.
>
> 2. It exacerbates the plan of how the alternate year seating plan is
> enacted.  I think this is a bigger issue.  If it is time zero for
> every council member, then we need a plan in each of the SGs to elect
> one for one year and another for two years (possibly complicated by
> the Contracted parties having an odd number of council members, so
> instead of 3 odd and 3 even in the house we might have 2 odd and 4
> even).  Whereas if some people are appointed to continue with their
> last year while others are newly elected to full terms, it is most
> likely that a natural alternation will occur that may only need to be
> adjuste in a few cases in the non-contracted house.
>
> 3. In terms of the continuing NCA, if indeed Terry's term is
> terminated, he needs to be reappointed for a one year term.  Perhaps
> this has already been dealt with and we will find out when the Nomcom
> list is announced.
>
> 4. I know that as new NCA when I began, the first meeting I attended,
> since we do not have retreats as the Board does for new members, was
> an important learning time.  Inserting a new NCA into the council and
> requiring them to be functional on their first day of ICANN
> participation (and I do not know whether we have one or two new NCA
> council members) is a daunting prospect.  Various constituency members
> have talked about the need for them to go to the meeting in Seoul to
> provide assistance for new council members, and these are people who
> have been active in the constituencies.  Imagine what it is like for a
> new NCA for whom it may be their first ICANN meeting.  while I now
> feel that I understand every nook and cranny of ICANN's gothic
> architecture, it can be frightening at first glance.
>
> There may be other issues, but those are the first that occur to me.
>
> a.