Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG on GNSO Council Restructuring
At-Large. please note that earlier today the ALAC Executive and our representative on this WG Alan Greenberg, met and discussed our desire to have a formal ALAC Statement to the Board on this matter. Please see our Wiki page https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee to find a link to the report of the WG from this now completed process, and also under Announcements to find an short background piece from the report and a note as to the mechanism for the ALAC to review our sub-committee and Rep statement appended to it, to be endorsed (in an expanded form if so desired) as an ALAC Statement to the Board. ALAC this serves as the start of the 7 day minimum notice required for a formal vote to be taken (between meetings) on this matter and in the next 24hrs further background documents and proposed expansion of this statement will be posted and a Big Pulse vote be created for the purpose of recording your views to 1. Endorse the proposed document an ALAC Statement, 2. Vote against the proposal or 3. Abstain. More in the next 24hrs. CLO
Cheryl, After having read the last WG output at https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/at_large_advisory_ committee:20080729041513-0-3574/files/FinalReport-GNSO-ImprovementsWG.pd f it seems like the proposed GNSO restructuralization could be as follows (Attachment A) ------------------------------ 2 houses - contracted and non-contracted parties/constituencies, 2 parties in each house House 1 - Contracted party house consists of 2 (registry and registrar) constituencies House 2 - Non-contracted party house consists of 2 (commercial and non-commercial) parties/constituencies that is, 4 parties/constituencies in both the houses collectively. The GNSO Council (given that the lowest proposed number of members are considered) House 1 Registries - 3 members Registrars - 3 members House 2 Commercial - 5 members Non-commercial - 5 members and also Equal number of votes between registries and registrars. Equal number of votes between commercial and non-commercial users. ------------------------------ Do I understand the proposal correctly, Cheryl? If so, there is a question I could not find an answer to. Q: What is the proposed number of votes for each of the four GNSO Council parties? Thanks Dominik -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:06 AM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: 'ALAC internal list' Subject: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG on GNSOCouncil Restructuring At-Large. please note that earlier today the ALAC Executive and our representative on this WG Alan Greenberg, met and discussed our desire to have a formal ALAC Statement to the Board on this matter. Please see our Wiki page https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee to find a link to the report of the WG from this now completed process, and also under Announcements to find an short background piece from the report and a note as to the mechanism for the ALAC to review our sub-committee and Rep statement appended to it, to be endorsed (in an expanded form if so desired) as an ALAC Statement to the Board. ALAC this serves as the start of the 7 day minimum notice required for a formal vote to be taken (between meetings) on this matter and in the next 24hrs further background documents and proposed expansion of this statement will be posted and a Big Pulse vote be created for the purpose of recording your views to 1. Endorse the proposed document an ALAC Statement, 2. Vote against the proposal or 3. Abstain. More in the next 24hrs. CLO _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dominik, I'm not sure if Cheryl is still up, so let me try to answer below. I'm not sure when it was posted, but there is now a companion background paper that may also make things clear. For those who are not very familiar with the GNSO, it should be read first. It can be found via https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee. At 29/07/2008 06:00 AM, Dominik Filipp wrote:
Cheryl,
After having read the last WG output at
https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/at_large_advisory_ committee:20080729041513-0-3574/files/FinalReport-GNSO-ImprovementsWG.pd f
it seems like the proposed GNSO restructuralization could be as follows (Attachment A)
------------------------------ 2 houses - contracted and non-contracted parties/constituencies, 2 parties in each house
House 1 - Contracted party house consists of 2 (registry and registrar) constituencies House 2 - Non-contracted party house consists of 2 (commercial and non-commercial) parties/constituencies
that is, 4 parties/constituencies in both the houses collectively.
Yes. The term being used is 4 "Stakeholders Groups"
The GNSO Council (given that the lowest proposed number of members are considered)
House 1 Registries - 3 members Registrars - 3 members
House 2 Commercial - 5 members Non-commercial - 5 members
and also
Equal number of votes between registries and registrars. Equal number of votes between commercial and non-commercial users. ------------------------------
Do I understand the proposal correctly, Cheryl?
Yes.
If so, there is a question I could not find an answer to.
Q: What is the proposed number of votes for each of the four GNSO Council parties?
The number of votes per Stakeholder group is the number of members they have (3 or 5 in your example). All voting is within a house and then the percentage of Yes votes in each house is used to decide if a motion has passed or not. The actual number of votes in not used, except in certain cases where a specific percentage must be reached AND a second rule ensures that there is at least one vote in certain houses. Because percentages are used instead of raw vote counts, the actual number of councillors does not need to be the same, and no weighting is needed. That is one of the results of the split-voting model. Hope this helps, Alan
Thanks
Dominik
Alan, Thank you for your answers. So, if I understand well, according to the proposal and your explanation the overall number of votes in the non-contracted stakeholder's group is (always) greater than that of the contracted group. Am I right? Thanks Dominik -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:35 PM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG on GNSOCouncil Restructuring Dominik, I'm not sure if Cheryl is still up, so let me try to answer below. I'm not sure when it was posted, but there is now a companion background paper that may also make things clear. For those who are not very familiar with the GNSO, it should be read first. It can be found via https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee. At 29/07/2008 06:00 AM, Dominik Filipp wrote:
Cheryl,
After having read the last WG output at
https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/at_large_advisory _ committee:20080729041513-0-3574/files/FinalReport-GNSO-ImprovementsWG.p d f
it seems like the proposed GNSO restructuralization could be as follows
(Attachment A)
------------------------------ 2 houses - contracted and non-contracted parties/constituencies, 2 parties in each house
House 1 - Contracted party house consists of 2 (registry and registrar) constituencies House 2 - Non-contracted party house consists of 2 (commercial and non-commercial) parties/constituencies
that is, 4 parties/constituencies in both the houses collectively.
Yes. The term being used is 4 "Stakeholders Groups"
The GNSO Council (given that the lowest proposed number of members are considered)
House 1 Registries - 3 members Registrars - 3 members
House 2 Commercial - 5 members Non-commercial - 5 members
and also
Equal number of votes between registries and registrars. Equal number of votes between commercial and non-commercial users. ------------------------------
Do I understand the proposal correctly, Cheryl?
Yes.
If so, there is a question I could not find an answer to.
Q: What is the proposed number of votes for each of the four GNSO Council parties?
The number of votes per Stakeholder group is the number of members they have (3 or 5 in your example). All voting is within a house and then the percentage of Yes votes in each house is used to decide if a motion has passed or not. The actual number of votes in not used, except in certain cases where a specific percentage must be reached AND a second rule ensures that there is at least one vote in certain houses. Because percentages are used instead of raw vote counts, the actual number of councillors does not need to be the same, and no weighting is needed. That is one of the results of the split-voting model. Hope this helps, Alan
Thanks
Dominik
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Sorry Alan, seems like I have not read the last two paragraphs properly. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:35 PM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG on GNSOCouncil Restructuring Dominik, I'm not sure if Cheryl is still up, so let me try to answer below. I'm not sure when it was posted, but there is now a companion background paper that may also make things clear. For those who are not very familiar with the GNSO, it should be read first. It can be found via https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee. At 29/07/2008 06:00 AM, Dominik Filipp wrote:
Cheryl,
After having read the last WG output at
https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/at_large_advisory _ committee:20080729041513-0-3574/files/FinalReport-GNSO-ImprovementsWG.p d f
it seems like the proposed GNSO restructuralization could be as follows
(Attachment A)
------------------------------ 2 houses - contracted and non-contracted parties/constituencies, 2 parties in each house
House 1 - Contracted party house consists of 2 (registry and registrar) constituencies House 2 - Non-contracted party house consists of 2 (commercial and non-commercial) parties/constituencies
that is, 4 parties/constituencies in both the houses collectively.
Yes. The term being used is 4 "Stakeholders Groups"
The GNSO Council (given that the lowest proposed number of members are considered)
House 1 Registries - 3 members Registrars - 3 members
House 2 Commercial - 5 members Non-commercial - 5 members
and also
Equal number of votes between registries and registrars. Equal number of votes between commercial and non-commercial users. ------------------------------
Do I understand the proposal correctly, Cheryl?
Yes.
If so, there is a question I could not find an answer to.
Q: What is the proposed number of votes for each of the four GNSO Council parties?
The number of votes per Stakeholder group is the number of members they have (3 or 5 in your example). All voting is within a house and then the percentage of Yes votes in each house is used to decide if a motion has passed or not. The actual number of votes in not used, except in certain cases where a specific percentage must be reached AND a second rule ensures that there is at least one vote in certain houses. Because percentages are used instead of raw vote counts, the actual number of councillors does not need to be the same, and no weighting is needed. That is one of the results of the split-voting model. Hope this helps, Alan
Thanks
Dominik
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
If I had to make the decision, I would have to endorse the Avri Doria's statement. The bicameral council idea is some neat footworks but I cannot find anywhere reference to a "conference committee" that would be necessary to "iron out" differences that would (shall?) emerge from both houses in order to report a "consensus" position to the ICANN Board. So the complexity imposed doesn't appear to get you further along the path to consensus in a shorter time! A question as to rationale. As I understand it, a call for an Issues Report is the pre-requisite to the PDP. Why then would (or should?) the voting threshold requirements be different? The statements of the Registry & NCUC representatives certainly peaked my interest. They seem more about personal animus than not. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: alac-internal-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-internal-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 12:06 AM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: 'ALAC internal list' Subject: [ALAC-Internal] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG on GNSO Council Restructuring At-Large. please note that earlier today the ALAC Executive and our representative on this WG Alan Greenberg, met and discussed our desire to have a formal ALAC Statement to the Board on this matter. Please see our Wiki page https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee to find a link to the report of the WG from this now completed process, and also under Announcements to find an short background piece from the report and a note as to the mechanism for the ALAC to review our sub-committee and Rep statement appended to it, to be endorsed (in an expanded form if so desired) as an ALAC Statement to the Board. ALAC this serves as the start of the 7 day minimum notice required for a formal vote to be taken (between meetings) on this matter and in the next 24hrs further background documents and proposed expansion of this statement will be posted and a Big Pulse vote be created for the purpose of recording your views to 1. Endorse the proposed document an ALAC Statement, 2. Vote against the proposal or 3. Abstain. More in the next 24hrs. CLO _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists. icann.org ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Carlton Samuels -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Dominik Filipp