X.3.1 I agree with Avri and the following should DELETED from this section: "subject to the provision that each Board-recognized Constituency shall be allocated a minimum of one seat on the GNSO Council" X.3.3 Personally, I think Avri makes a good point but will need to confirm with the RrC. X.3.6 I agree with Avri. In fact, I don't understand why this is still an open issue. Since each house fills a seat there is no need for any such limitations. The last paragraph of this section should simply read: "Notification of the Board seat selections shall be given by the GNSO Chair in writing to the ICANN Secretary, consistent with Article VI, Sections 8(4) and 12(1)." X.3.8 There may be advantages to allowing the Nominating Committee to make this assignment based on criteria provided by the Council as a whole (for the Council level NCA) and by criteria provided by each of the houses for their NCA (but final criteria approved by the Council as a whole). That said, that is just a personal observation for consideration, not an RrC position. X.5.1 (Avri called X4.1) I agree with Avri and suggest that the last paragraph of this section should be re-written to simply read: "Each Stakeholder Group is assigned a specific number of Council seats in accordance with Section 3(1) of this Article (link TBD). The Board will consider any recommendations presented by the GNSO Council for structural or procedural changes that may be appropriate to ensure that the GNSO Council may continue to accommodate additional Constituencies consistent with the principles and provisions of these Bylaws" XX.5.5 The first paragraph of this section has the same problem as X.3.1 and X.5.1. It should be re-written to read: "Upon the adoption of this Transition Article, the representatives on the Generic Name Supporting Organization ("GNSO") Council from each of the existing four Stakeholder Groups shall be appointed or elected consistent with the rules and procedures of each Stakeholder Group subject to the following:" Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure From: Avri Doria <avri@psg.com> Date: Fri, March 27, 2009 3:16 pm To: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> hi, A few question/comments on first reading. -- X3.1

Each Stakeholder Group may select representatives according to its Charter procedures subject to the provision that each Board-recognized Constituency shall be allocated a minimum of one seat on the GNSO Council.

I question whether this is indeed in keeping with the intent of the Board mandated changes as I thought they intended to break the direct connection between constituencies and council seats. X3.3 I think that this would possibly stifle an outside voice in one of the houses. I think that condition C should apply no matter what house a NCA happens to be in. If the aggrieved house cannot make its case to the entire council then perhaps its grievance is not as 'for cause' as they believe. X3.6 I thought that this was still an open issue waiting board consideration. As I described in the original report, I still believe that this will lessen the legitimacy of the board member vis a vis the other members, as this person would not have been elected by an SO but only by part of an SO.

x3.8

and one voting member appointed by the ICANN Nominating Committee

this read as if the Nomcom is going to determine which NCA sits where. I would recommend removing removing the line from each of the paragraphs and inserting: c. One of the council members appointed by the ICANN Nominating Committee will be serve as a voting member of each house the way this is done would then be put in the Operating rules x4.1 As mentioned above I think the last paragraph is not in keeping with the Board's intent to separate seating on the council from constituency existence. If we do this, I believe we have negated one of the main advantages to be gained from the separation of constituency from stakeholder group. thanks a.