Jeff, Please note my responses below. Chuck ________________________________ From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 10:12 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; ken.bour@verizon.net; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Margie.Milam@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [liaison6c] RE: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure Can I propose a meeting between the five work team chairs to discuss the items being worked on as I already see overlapping subject areas. For example, to the extent that the voting thresholds are involved in the policy process, those are being discussed in the PPSC work teams. Again we are not looking at changing the thresholds, but providing more clarity as to what they mean. It sounds like from your note Chuck that this may be also addressed by other teams as well. [Gomes, Chuck] As long as we have a clear agenda with objectives that are useful to all the WT chairs, I think this would be fine. I think the first task is to develop the agenda. For example, "Create an Issues Report: requires more than 25% vote of both houses or majority of one house" · I take it from your e-mail Chuck, that the issue of what constitutes a 25% vote is a matter for each SG to address and recommend to the Council?[Gomes, Chuck] The Contracted House will have 7 votes; 25% would be 2 votes. The Users House will have 13 votes; 25% would be 4 votes. What needs to be defined? · However, what is an issues report? Is an issues report the first step in the process? Is there something in between an issues report and a vote on what used to be known as a PDP? - These are questions for the PDP work team, correct?[Gomes, Chuck] These are legitimate questions for the PDP WT to work on on and could result in the need to add new thresholds and maybe even the elmination of thresholds as currently defined. For example, maybe we won't even have anything called an issues report so that threshold could eventually be deleted. In the meantime though we will be operating using the existing PDP so we would need a voting threshold for issues reports. I think a meeting between the five chairs of the work teams and icann staff may be helpful to get the issues on the table. Perhaps then you will be able to see why I am leery about implementing the voting thresholds in June if the other work is not done?[Gomes, Chuck] I think it is helpful to recognize that the GNSO bicameral structure will be implemented before the GNSO Improvements WTs finish there work. In the case of the PPSC and its two work teams, they likely will not be finished with their work when the bicameral Council is seated, whether that is in June or some later date, but policy work will still need to continue. The natural way for that to happen is to use the existing PDP and thus there is a need for voting thresholds in the bicameral model to support that. Once the GNSO improvement recommendations from the WTs are fully implemented, we may need to change the thresholds but that should just be a change in the Rules and not a change in the Bylaws, although I support a Bylaws requirement that Rules changes require a high threshold (at least 60% of each house) and Board approval so as to avoid making rules changes too easy. Apparently e-mails alone will not solve the issue (especially because not everyone on this list can get my e-mails - I cannot post to the council list).[Gomes, Chuck] I believe that all Councilors are on this list. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.: NeuStar, Inc. Vice President, Law & Policy ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:58 AM To: Neuman, Jeff; ken.bour@verizon.net; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Margie.Milam@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [liaison6c] RE: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure The voting thresholds are for the bicameral Council, not the SGs. It will be up to the SGs to inform their Council reps how to vote on the Council. The GNSO Operations work team is tasked with developing revised Rules of Procedure for the Council and proposing those to the Council for consideration. That of course will involve full community input. Chuck ________________________________ From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:49 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; ken.bour@verizon.net; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Margie.Milam@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [liaison6c] RE: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure We are not revisiting those, but there are still so many unanswered questions even around the voting thresholds (i.e., does voting results mean of those present or does it mean of those in the stakeholder group as a whole) that need to be explored and some believe that we should not implement any new thresholds until these questions are answered by the community. In any case, it is a subject for the work teams to consider (as opposed to just the Council). Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.: NeuStar, Inc. Vice President, Law & Policy ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:32 AM To: Neuman, Jeff; ken.bour@verizon.net; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Margie.Milam@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [liaison6c] RE: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure Jeff, I think we need to separate the voting thresholds from the PDP work, at least for now. That would not necessarily mean that the thresholds could not be revisited later if I problem was discovered relative to the revised PDP but I would hope that that is an unlikely possibility. A lot of community thought already went into the thresholds and I don't think it is a good idea to start that over. Chuck ________________________________ From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 9:25 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; ken.bour@verizon.net; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Margie.Milam@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [liaison6c] RE: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure I was reading Section 11 in the document (reprinted below) that jumped out at me. The reason I made my comments was because one of the issues that the work team was discussing was what needed to be accomplished prior to the June date as opposed to after. It was also up for discussion as to what would happen with the PDP if everything were not completed. The assumption some had in the group was that even if the GNSO divided into Stakeholder Groups at the June date, the PDP may very well be unaltered until such time as the Work Team/Council and Board felt the changes could be implemented. But this seems to envision a piece meal adoption of a new PDP (namely adopting the voting thresholds with no explanation or context until other pieces could be (if ever) adopted)). The registries and registrars may not like changing the PDP in this piecemeal fashion since it would affect how consensus policies are developed. I also fear that we (the Work Team/Council/Staff) could get bogged down in discussing what should happen at transition date and never get to the ultimate substance (the redesign of the PDP as a whole). I do not view this issue as a GNSO council issue, but rather as a community issue that at the very least the work team will need to address. 11. In the absence of further action by the Board to modify or amend Annex A to these Bylaws and/or this Transition Article XX, Section 5, the newly seated GNSO Council will utilize the following voting thresholds for all policy development activity conducted commencing with the ICANN meeting in June 2009[1]: a. Create an Issues Report: requires more than 25% vote of both houses or majority of one house; b. Initiate a PDP Within Scope: requires more than 33% vote of both houses or more than 66% vote of one house; c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires a vote of more than 75% of one house and a majority of the other house ("Super Majority"); d. Approve a PDP Without a Super Majority: requires a majority of both houses and further requires that one representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports; e. Approve a PDP With a Super Majority: requires greater than 75% majority in one house and majority in the other house. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.: NeuStar, Inc. Vice President, Law & Policy ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 8:05 PM To: Neuman, Jeff; ken.bour@verizon.net; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Margie.Milam@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [liaison6c] RE: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure Jeff, Note that the Bylaws changes are supposed to only relate to the restructure of the Council to the new bicameral model and not to the broader GNSO improvements effort for which implementation plans are being developed by the work teams. It is true that the revised PDP will be a Bylaws issue but I don't believe that is included in this draft of Bylaws changes. The goal of this limited effort is to make sure that any Bylaws changes are in place before the Council moves to the bicameral model. Chuck ________________________________ From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 6:30 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; ken.bour@verizon.net; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Margie.Milam@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [liaison6c] RE: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure Speaking not as a councilor, but as one who is still on these lists. There are many questions still being addressed by the 5 work teams which seem to be (perhaps unintentionally) superseded by Staff's work. As the chair of one of the work teams, one of our agenda items to discuss within the team (notice I did not say council) what parts should be in the bylaws and what should be in rules of operation. Again that is dependent as Chuck said on how the rules of operation can be changed. I want to thank Staff for this work, but I fear this will be a distraction as opposed to an aid for the community in doing the work of the 5 work teams. I again thank staff for doing some of this work, but I am afraid much of it was too premature. It is the community that needs to figure out how this will work, not the staff. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Vice President, Law & Policy NeuStar, Inc. Jeff.Neuman@neustar.biz ________________________________ From: owner-liaison6c@gnso.icann.org To: Ken Bour ; Stéphane Van Gelder ; Margie Milam ; council@gnso.icann.org ; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org Sent: Sun Mar 29 17:28:39 2009 Subject: [liaison6c] RE: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure I support the suggestion to move voting thresholds to the Rules but with a condition in the Rules that any changes to the thresholds requires a high voting bar (at least 60% of both houses) and that the Bylaws require Board approval of the Rules and any amendments to the Rules. In my opinion, the consensus reached on GNSO restructure was highly dependent on the interdependency of several elements of the restructure recommendations. In particular, the recommended thresholds were a very crucial part of the overall package that we agreed to, so if it is too easy to change those, it could compromise the whole set of recommendations. I do not agree that this document is almost ready. I think we have quite a bit of work to do still and this is much too important to rush. I am all for doing it quickly, but let's make sure we carefully deal with all the issues that are being identified. In that regard, I think it would be helpful if Staff prepared a document organized similar to what they have already done that integrates all the various comments including their source with each section. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ken Bour Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 2:59 PM To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Margie Milam'; council@gnso.icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure Stéphane: Thank you for your prompt initiative and the supportive observations. Please see my embedded comments below. If there are any other questions, please continue to raise them. In the interest of time, we recognize and appreciate the Council's active interest and remain committed to timely and thorough replies. Ken Bour From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 1:05 PM To: Margie Milam; council@gnso.icann.org; liaison6c@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure Margie, Thanks for sending these on. As we are so pushed for time, allow me to get the ball rolling on this discussion and make a few comments. Section 3. Article 1. Moving the "geographic regions goalposts" up from "no 2 members" to "no 3 members" seems like a sensible suggestion for those SGs with 6 Council members. I agree with it. [KAB: ] Staff appreciates your support of this provision. Section 3. Article 3. What's your rationale for recommending that "vacancy rules" be moved to OR&Ps? [KAB: ] The only specific provision, in this section, deals with the removal of an NCA for cause and includes the actual voting thresholds. One of Staff's sub-objectives in this re-drafting assignment was to eliminate any/all provisions that, in its judgment, could be more effectively accommodated within internal Council procedures. One area identified was detailed voting thresholds and another involved this topic of vacancies, removals, and resignations. Staff suggests that such provisions do not rise to the level of being required in ICANN-level legal Bylaws. In the event that new Council voting thresholds are added or modified, in the future, such changes could be accomplished locally versus requiring protracted formal Bylaws amendments. Similarly, procedures for handling Council vacancies, resignations, and other administrative matters seem more appropriate for OR&P vs. corporate Bylaws. Section 3. Article 7. Are there no voting thresholds for selecting the chair and vice-chairs? [KAB: ] Yes, there are bicameral house voting thresholds for these positions and, as discussed above, they will be prescribed in the Council's OR&P currently under revision by the GNSO Operations Work Team (Ray Fassett, Chair) under the auspices of the Operations Steering Committee (OSC). The Council Chair election requires 60% of both houses and the Vice-Chair positions are prescribed in the following language, inserted below: "The GNSO Council shall also select two Vice Chairs, one elected from each of the two voting houses. If the Council Chair is elected from one of the houses, then the non-voting Council-Level Nominating Committee Appointee shall serve as one of the Vice Chairs in lieu of the Vice Chair from the house of the elected Chair. If the Chair is elected from one of the houses, that person shall retain his/her vote in that house." Section 3. Article 8. I agree the voting threshold descriptions belong in the OR&Ps, but it would be helpful for our discussion of the bylaws to have a reminder of what they are. Can you provide a link to where they are please? [KAB: ] The voting thresholds originally prescribed by the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring (WG-GCR) contained both PDP and non-PDP elements. In this re-drafting exercise, Staff is recommending that they be parsed out as follows: the non-PDP voting thresholds will be contained in Council OR&P while the PDP thresholds will be included in Article XX-Transition until such time as the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) and PDP Work Team (Jeff Neumann, Chair) have completed deliberations and are prepared to recommend a formal revision to Annex A of the Bylaws. Since the PDP thresholds are currently specified in Annex A, which is not being revised as part of this restructuring effort, Staff recommends that the new PDP thresholds should be included in Article XX vs. Council OR&P. Article XX is a "transition" document only and, once the PDP voting thresholds are successfully relocated from Annex A to the Council OR&P (Staff's recommendation), Article XX can be removed from the Bylaws in its entirety (assuming all other transition matters are completed). Below are the voting thresholds recast into the two groupings: Non-PDP: a) Elect Council Chair: requires 60% of both houses. b) Remove NCA for Cause: requires 75% of both houses (excluding the NCA subject to removal); subject to Board approval. c) All other GNSO Council Business (default): requires majority of both houses. PDP: a) Create an Issues Report: requires more than 25% vote of both houses or majority of one house. b) Initiate a PDP within Scope: requires more than 33% vote of both houses or more than 66% vote of one house. c) Initiate a PDP not within Scope: requires a vote of more than 75% of one house and a majority of the other house ("Super Majority"). d) Approve a PDP without a Super Majority: requires a majority of both houses and further requires that one representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports. e) Approve a PDP with a Super Majority: requires greater than 75% majority in one house and majority in the other house. Apart from the points raised above, I think this document is already very near completion. Having seen it, I must admit I feel a lot more confident that we can move ahead with sufficient speed to meet the deadlines set in your email for our review of these proposed bylaws. Congratulations on a well-written document. [KAB: ] Staff appreciates the compliment and the vote of confidence toward a successful June Council seating. Thank you! Stéphane Le 27/03/09 00:34, « Margie Milam » <Margie.Milam@icann.org> a écrit : Dear All, As discussed in today's GNSO call, ICANN Staff has prepared Draft Bylaws Revisions (attached) that contain Staff recommendations for changes relating to the GNSO restructure. They are intended to serve as a starting point for the GNSO Council's discussions. General Observations · These Bylaws were drafted to be consistent with Board recommendations as to structure and principles. · Staff also attempted to build in flexibility to accommodate changes in the future without requiring Bylaws amendments. For example, Staff recommends that some issues be moved from the Bylaws to GNSO Council Operating Rules and Procedures that would be approved by the Board. · Since the Board approved improvements did not provide specific details with respect to all topics, ICANN staff developed recommendations to address these gaps, which are contained in footnotes throughout the document. · The Draft Bylaws Revisions are subject to review by the ICANN Office of the General Counsel for legal form as well as consistency. · A few additional decisions will be needed to finalize these Bylaws, for example, Board approval of the unresolved open issue concerning Board seats 13 and 14, and further Council work on certain of the transition procedures (e.g. staggered terms, elections). Format of Revisions · To facilitate reviewing these changes, the Draft Bylaws is organized as a side-by-side comparison of the current language and the proposed language. · The yellow highlighted text refers to new or substantially revised language compared to the current Bylaws. · The footnotes include rationale statements where Staff thought an explanation might be helpful. Next Steps and Timing · The GNSO Council will need to decide how it would like to review the Draft Bylaws to develop its recommendations. · ICANN Staff will be working with the GNSO Operations Work Team in developing the GNSO Operating Rules and Procedures to incorporate those improvements that were omitted from the Bylaws in order to provide flexibility. · In order to seat the new Council by June, the Board would need to approve of the revisions by no later than its May 21st meeting. · A public comment period would need to take place before the May 21st meeting. · The Council would need to complete its review/analysis by the next GNSO council meeting on April 16th in order to accommodate the public comment period. · Due to this short time period, the GNSO Council is currently evaluating the most effective way to proceed. Finally, ICANN Staff is available to provide background and additional information on the Draft Bylaws Revisions if it would be helpful for your review. Regards, Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ [1] Note: The PPSC's PDP Team may recommend rewording the voting thresholds.