Denise Michel has responded to my concerns,
see below
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Denise Michel
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008
8:24 PM
To:
Cc: [log in to unmask];
liaison6c; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Janis Karklins; Alan Greenberg; Bertrand de La
Chapelle
Subject: Re: [liaison6c] Follow-up
on GNSO Restructuring/Improvements
Thanks for your note. I think we share the clear expectation that in the new
bicameral voting model Council structure adopted by the Board, the new
Stakeholder Groups will play a fundamental role in seating Council
representatives. The Stakeholder Groups and their respective
relationships with the existing (and any new) GNSO constituencies will be
developed and I understand many details need to be worked out.
The draft constituency template documents I circulated this week are intended
to provide guidance to any potential new constituencies as they structure their
formal petitions to the Board. The templates are not intended to be
prescriptive in any way. Rather, they provide (long overdue) material to
allow any interest group to take advantage of the ICANN Bylaw directives
regarding the creation of new constituencies. In preparing the draft
templates, Staff reviewed existing constituency bylaws and charters in an
effort to capture the full range of potential issues that a new constituency
should consider. In light of your note, I do see that Section 6.0 of the New
Constituency template entitled "GNSO Council Representation" could be
confusing and should be amended to reference a Stakeholder Group's role.
We welcome any other specific edits or comments you or other members of the
community may have on the style or substance of the draft templates.
We recognize that each Stakeholder Group will encounter challenges as they work
to develop a model for Board approval. To that end Staff is developing an
additional draft Stakeholder Group Template that will offer similar support
based on a review of the existing ICANN Bylaws, the recent Board resolutions
and the relevant Board Governance Committee recommendations.
We also recognize the particular challenge for the Non Commercial Stakeholders
Group. The BGC Report clearly stated that the group must go "far
beyond the membership of the current Non-Commercial Users Constituency
(NCUC)" and "must consider educational, research, and philanthropic
organizations, foundations, think tanks, members of academia, individual
registrant groups and other noncommercial organizations, as well as individual
registrants, as part of a Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group." In
view of your efforts to date it is clear that you are trying to address that
challenge head-on.
It was evident in the recent GNSO Implementation Team meetings and even in
discussion during this week's GNSO Council teleconference meeting, that there
is still some community confusion about the new processes developed by the
Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring as ultimately approved by the Board
and the Board-approved GNSO Improvement recommendations. We are quite
mindful of the learning curve and are working to develop materials that will help
all community members better understand and work through the interrelationships
between interest groups, constituencies and Stakeholder Groups.
Your continued willingness to engage in the process and offer your thoughts and
ideas is most appreciated.
Regards,
Denise
--
Denise Michel
ICANN VP, Policy
[log in to unmask]
+1.408.429.3072
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 5:34 AM,
Denise:
Thanks for the effort to compile some information about the
changes underway in the GNSO.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a rather large disconnect
between what the staff has produced and what ICANN's actual GNSO participants
are discussing and doing. To help your staff get more in touch with bottom-up
developments, I've prepared this note.
Virtually everyone involved in the discussions of new
stakeholder groups has figured out that it is not viable for the formation of
constituency groups to be tied to GNSO Council seats.
Let me explain in very simple terms why this must be so.
The commercial and noncommercial stakeholder groups each get
6 seats on the user side of the Council. If adding a constituency means
allocating a certain number of those fixed seats to the new constituency, then
every time you add a constituency, the members of each existing constituency
lose voting power. This makes the whole process into a zero-sum game, a power
struggle. This is unnecessary and unproductive. And it is not difficult to
imagine a situation in which you end up with 7 or 8 constituencies, and there
are only 6 Council seats. What happens then?
Also, organizing things this way raises important questions
about the relative size of constituencies. Should a constituency with, say 10
member organizations or individuals get the same number of Council seats as one
with 20 or 30? How will the Board know about the relative size of each
constituency, especially as it changes over time?
The overall effect of your approach, whether intended or not,
is just to encourage splinter groups to form. Rather than encouraging more
people and organizations to get involved in GNSO, it rewards existing
participants to game the system by splitting off and forming new
constituencies. And if you look at which groups are talking about forming new
constituencies, that is exactly what you see: existing participants splintering
off, no new participants.
It would be easier to have SG's as a whole elect the seats.
That is what the NCSG plans to do. That gives new constituencies an incentive
to bring in NEW organizations and participants, so that they can get more
votes.
GNSO participants from a wide variety of perspectives – registrars, commercial,
noncommercial -- have been discussing this for 2 months now, and I don't know
of a single person who supports the view that Council seats should be tied to
constituency recognition any more. And yet the forms you have prepared here
seem to assume that they are.
More troublesome, either the staff or the Board – I don't
know which – seems to be assuming that we need to be handed a top-down
solution. That is really not very helpful at the current moment. It would be
better for the Board to allow the nascent Stakeholder Groups to work out, among
themselves, how to organize the transition to the new structure, and to put
their proposals before the Board for approval or disapproval.
We will all be in
--MM
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Denise Michel
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008
5:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask];
liaison6c; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Janis Karklins; Alan Greenberg; Bertrand de La
Chapelle
Subject: [liaison6c] Follow-up on
GNSO Restructuring/Improvements
Dear Community Members:
In advance of the 16 Oct. GNSO Council meeting, I wanted to provide everyone
with the follow-up action items from the Board's most recent draft GNSO
Restructuring Resolution (see draft resolution below and at <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-01oct08.htm>).
I'd be happy to elaborate on these during the Council call, or feel free to
email questions to <[log in to unmask]>.
1) COUNCIL CHAIR -- The Board adopted the WG-GCR recommendation that the GNSO
Council Chair be elected by a vote of 60% of both voting houses and each voting
house has the flexibility to create a process for selecting its own Vice Chair.
To address questions on whether a "back-up" process was needed in the
event that a vote did not yield a Chair, the Board decided to ask the Council
to consider this matter. "The Board directs the Council to develop a
process for subsequent balloting, if needed, until a Council Chair is duly
elected. This process should be developed before the first Chair election of
the newly structured Council."
*ACTION: As the Council moves forward with GNSO Improvements
implementation, this should be addressed and provided to the Board.
2) BOARD SEATS -- "The Board and General Counsel have outstanding
questions about the WG-GCR recommendations regarding Board seat elections and
directs Staff to share these with the community and seek additional
input."
*ACTION: Staff will post outstanding questions and solicit input shortly.
3) VOTING THRESHOLDS -- The Board adopted all voting thresholds proposed by the
WG-GCR Report. Concerns that implementation of GNSO Improvements (e.g. new PDP,
working group model, etc) might necessitate additions to, or clarifications of,
thresholds, the Board requested that "the GNSO develop any additional
voting thresholds or categories that may be needed as part of its proposed GNSO
Improvements Implementation Plan to be submitted to the Board for
approval." (Note: this draft wording likely will be changed to avoid
confusion; the Board expects to receive an overall plan for implementing
restructuring; this is separate from the GNSO's effort to create a structure of
committees and teams to start the GNSO Improvements implementation work.)
*ACTION: As the Council moves forward with GNSO Improvements
implementation, this should be addressed and, if changes or additions are
deemed necessary, they should be provided to the Board.
4) NEW/EXISTING CONSTITUENCIES -- The Board acknowledged Staff development of a
"Notice of Intent" document for potential new constituencies (*see
attached) and directed Staff "to develop a formal petition and charter
template that will assist applicants in satisfying the formative criteria
(consistent with the ICANN Bylaws) to facilitate the Board's evaluation of
petitions to form new constituencies. Staff also is directed to work with the
existing GNSO constituencies to design and develop a streamlined process along
with appropriate mechanisms that will assist with the Board's timely
recognition and approval of existing constituencies".
*ACTION: Attached is a "Notice of Intent" to solicit and
publicly share information on entities interested in forming new
constituencies, along with a proposed petition and charter template.
Staff would appreciate receiving any input you may have by 28 Oct. Staff
also is developing for your consideration a draft template for constituencies
to use to enable the Board to "renew" constituencies. Since
this is a new endeavor, Staff is offering a draft as a starting point for
discussion. Staff will collect and share input with the community during
the Cairo ICANN meeting.
5) STAKEHOLDER GROUPS — The Board "reinforced its support for the
following principles pertaining to the formation of the new Stakeholder Groups,
and requests that all constituency members and other relevant parties comply
with the principles included in the BGC Working Group's GNSO Improvements
Report approved by the Board in establishing the newly formed structures,
including: the need to better represent the wide variety of groups and individuals
that compose the global ICANN community, in a structure that can change more
easily with the gTLD environment and stakeholders; and the inclusion of new
actors/participants, where applicable, and the expansion of constituencies
within Stakeholder Groups, where applicable." Further, Staff was directed
to work with the GNSO community to develop "a set of streamlined processes
(along with appropriate templates, tools, or other mechanisms) that will assist
in the formation of these new Stakeholder Groups and also facilitate the
Board's subsequent review and approval of those structures." The
Board directed that plans for each of the four new Stakeholder Groups be
submitted to the Board for consideration at the ICANN Mexico City Board
meeting, and the plans "must be reviewed and approved by the Board before
a newly structured GNSO Council is seated in June 2009. The Board will
consider the need for interim action to fill Council seats in the event that it
finds any Stakeholder Group plans to be deficient or delayed."
*ACTION: Staff will provide some initial draft material shortly to
support community consideration and discussion.
6) ROLE/REPRESENTATION OF USERS — The Board requested additional community
"dialogue and input on the appropriate role and representation of
individual Internet users, including individual commercial and non-commercial
Internet users, in the GNSO. Input from the GNSO, the ALAC and At-Large
community, and any relevant applicants for new constituencies, would be
particularly helpful and should address the inclusion of registrants and
individual users in the GNSO in a manner that compliments the ALAC and its
supporting structures, and ensures that registrants' and individual Internet
users' gTLD interests are effectively represented within the GNSO."
*ACTION: Staff will post a public comment solicitation and will provide
background information to encourage community consideration and input to the
Board.
7) IMPLEMENTATION TIMETABLE — The Board amended its previous implementation
timetable and directs that the transition to a new bicameral GNSO Council
voting structure take place over a phased implementation schedule that begins
immediately and ends in June 2009 with the seating of the new Council. The
implementation phases will be as follows:
-Phase 1 - GNSO Council restructuring implementation plan submitted in
advance of the December 2008 Board Meeting;
- Phase 2 - Existing Constituencies submit confirmation documents to the
Board for review in advance of the February 2009 Board Meeting;
- Phase 3 - Stakeholder Groups submit formal plans for Board approval for
consideration at the ICANN Mexico City Board meeting; and
- Phase 4 - Stakeholder Groups with plans approved by the Board select
Council representatives, and the newly structured GNSO Council is seated
by the June 2009 Asia-Pacific ICANN Meeting.
*ACTION — Staff will assist the GNSO in developing a restructuring
implementation plan that the Board expects to receive later this year.
===================
-- GNSO Restructuring -- (Membership and Leadership Selection:)
It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.06), as recommended by the WG-GCR, the Board
authorizes a third Council-level non-voting Nominating Committee
Appointee to serve on the Council whose presence could preserve an
independent aspect on the Council and could provide useful management
support as the Council moves toward a working group management function.
It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.07), the Board authorizes the GNSO Council
to elect a Chair consistent with the recommendation of the WG-GCR - that
the GNSO Chair be elected by a vote of 60% of both voting houses and
each voting house has the flexibility to create a process for selecting
its own Vice Chair. The Board directs the Council to develop a process
for subsequent balloting, if needed, until a Council Chair is duly
elected. This process should be developed before the first Chair
election of the newly structured Council.
It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.08), the Board and General Counsel have
outstanding questions about the WG-GCR recommendations regarding Board
seat elections and directs Staff to share these with the community and
seek additional input.
-- GNSO Restructuring -- (Operational/Voting Considerations:)
It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.09), the Board adopts all voting thresholds
proposed in the WG-GCR Report. The Board requests that the GNSO develop
any additional voting thresholds or categories that may be needed as
part of its proposed GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan to be
submitted to the Board for approval.
-- GNSO Restructuring -- (Stakeholder and Constituency Organizational
Concerns:)
It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.10), the Board acknowledges Staff's
development of the "Notice of Intent" documentation for potential new
constituencies and directs Staff to develop a formal petition and
charter template that will assist applicants in satisfying the formative
criteria (consistent with the ICANN Bylaws) to facilitate the Board's
evaluation of petitions to form new constituencies. Staff also is
directed to work with the existing GNSO constituencies to design and
develop a streamlined process along with appropriate mechanisms that
will assist with the Board's timely recognition and approval of existing
constituencies.
It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.11), the Board reinforces its support for
the following principles pertaining to the formation of the new
Stakeholder Groups, and requests that all constituency members and other
relevant parties comply with the principles included in the BGC Working
Group's GNSO Improvements Report approved by the Board in establishing
the newly formed structures, including:
- The need to better represent the wide variety of groups and
individuals that compose the global ICANN community, in a structure that
can change more easily with the gTLD environment and stakeholders.
- The inclusion of new actors/participants, where applicable, and the
expansion of constituencies within Stakeholder Groups, where applicable.
It is, further Resolved (2008.10.01.12), that the Board further directs
Staff to work with existing constituencies to develop a set of
streamlined processes (along with appropriate templates, tools, or other
mechanisms) that will assist in the formation of these new Stakeholder
Groups and also facilitate the Board's subsequent review and approval of
those structures.
It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.13), the Board directs that plans for each
of the four new Stakeholder Groups, that are consistent with the above
principles, be submitted to the Board for consideration at the ICANN
Mexico City Board meeting. The plans must be reviewed and approved by
the Board before a newly structured GNSO Council is seated in June 2009.
The Board will consider the need for interim action to fill Council
seats in the event that it finds any Stakeholder Group plans to be
deficient or delayed.
-- GNSO Restructuring -- (The Role of Individual Internet Users in the
GNSO:)
It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.14), The Board requests additional community
dialogue and input on the appropriate role and representation of
individual Internet users, including individual commercial and
non-commercial Internet users, in the GNSO. Input from the GNSO, the
ALAC and At-Large community, and any relevant applicants for new
constituencies, would be particularly helpful and should address the
inclusion of registrants and individual users in the GNSO in a manner
that compliments the ALAC and its supporting structures, and ensures
that registrants' and individual Internet users' gTLD interests are
effectively represented within the GNSO.
-- GNSO Restructuring -- (Implementation Timing:)
It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.15), the Board amends its previous
implementation timetable and directs that the transition to a new
bicameral GNSO Council voting structure take place over a phased
implementation schedule that begins immediately and ends in June 2009
with the seating of the new Council. The implementation phases will be
as follows:
Phase 1 - GNSO Council restructuring implementation plan submitted in
advance of the December 2008 Board Meeting;
Phase 2 - Existing Constituencies submit confirmation documents to the
Board for review in advance of the February 2009 Board Meeting;
Phase 3 - Stakeholder Groups submit formal plans for Board approval for
consideration at the ICANN Mexico City Board meeting; and
Phase 4 - Stakeholder Groups with plans approved by the Board select
Council representatives, and the newly structured GNSO Council is seated
by the June 2009 Asia-Pacific ICANN Meeting.