Hi again,

Come to think of it, Bill, although there is nothing in the DT’s report that would suggest a restructuring of the GNSO, there is a section that describes a minority proposal that the DT did not accept on voting thresholds within the Council. These thresholds are meant to only address the new powers being granted to the GNSO as per the new bylaws, and not meant to influence voting thresholds on other issues (such as those concerning gTLD policy development).

The proposal effectively did away with the thresholds required across Houses, and also excluded the NCAs of either House from voting (as per the CSG folks, the NCA does not represent a GNSO SG or C). Anyway…, we rejected the proposal, and the notion of excluding the NCA. But there is a table in the report that describes this proposal. I also know that this table was shared with the GNSO Futures Group I referred to earlier, supposedly as an example of life in the GNSO without Houses.

Thanks again.

Amr

> On Oct 13, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> All good questions Bill. I don’t really have an answer for you, but I have asked those questions of them in the past. I think it’s only fair to also say that it’s not only CSG members who seem to believe that restructuring the GNSO is desirable. At the Marrakech meeting, there was an unrecorded session called “Birds of a Feather” (BoF) (if I recall correctly). There are also ongoing discussions on an informal NCPH group called the GNSO Futures Group that is discussing this. NCSG members seem to have actively participated in both, and some Registries attended the BoF session in Marrakech. They may have been Brand Registries, but I honestly don’t recall. There may be other discussions going on that I am not aware of.
> 
> The main question I have been asking, however, is what exactly is the problem with the two-House structure that needs fixing? I’d like to understand this better before moving on to their ideas of making improvements. Currently, and as far as I can tell, the two-House structure of the GNSO serves very limited purposes:
> 
> 1. Voting thresholds on the GNSO Council
> 2. Each House of the GNSO selects an ICANN Director
> 3. Each House of the GNSO selects a GNSO Council Vice-Chair
> 
> Not sure there’s much else to it.
> 
> As far as the NCSG expressing a view, I don’t believe we’ve had a process in the past few years to collect views for the NCSG to have a position. Individual members of the NCSG (including myself) have expressed personal views. I’m also not sure that the NCUC has formally expressed a view on this recently either. If it has, I missed it. I also can’t speak for NPOC on this, and it’d be helpful to hear from them. I know that a number of NPOC members have engaged in these discussions, and if I recall correctly, the GNSO Futures Group was co-chaired by a member of NPOC.
> 
> I hope that helps.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> On Oct 13, 2016, at 2:11 PM, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi
>> 
>>> On Oct 13, 2016, at 11:57, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> the CSG constituencies have been rather unhelpful on this topic while working on the DT. Instead of focusing on the mandate of the DT, they took the opportunity to raise points that are likely more relevant to their ongoing desire to restructure the GNSO, and do away with the bicameral House structure it uses.
>> 
>> Thanks Amr this is helpful as always.  The minority statement aside (imagine you’re right there), I’m curious, having not spoken with CSG about this since in over a year due to NomCom cloistering: what exactly is their current thinking about restructuring the GNSO, what would they want it to look like without the houses?  And gave we expressed a view on this that I’ve missed?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Bill