Questions about Noncommercial Stakeholder Group organization

[Robin Gross]

I also favor option 1 for both issues below, and am eager to hear  
what others in the constituency think about structuring the  
stakeholder group this way.

Best,
Robin


On Nov 5, 2008, at 5:24 AM, William Drake wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I favor option 1 for both voting methods and geographic  
> representation.  Simplicity is preferable in both cases.  The  
> proposed committee structure seems sensible.
>
> Thanks to Mary for the helpful notes.
>
> Must run,
>
> Bill
>
> On Nov 5, 2008, at 7:56 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>> Greetings members,
>> Here at Cairo we have had some very useful discussions with Board  
>> members, ALAC and the business constituencies about the shape of  
>> the new Noncommercial Stakeholders Group. We have promised to give  
>> the Board Governance Committee a rough draft of the charter for  
>> the new NCSG by the end of this month.
>> There were a couple of issues or decisions that were controversial  
>> or just difficult to know what is best. We wanted to solicit your  
>> opinion about that. Please give us your input on the items below
>>
>> Two of the questions relate to electing GNSO Councilors. The other  
>> is just a question about organizational structure
>>
>> In the future we will need to elect 6 GNSO Councilors.
>>
>> Voting method for GNSO Council representatives
>> =====================================
>> V1) Should each member give one vote to 6 candidates?
>> V2) Should we allow members to concentrate and distribute their  
>> votes, e.g., assign all 6 votes to one candidate, or 3 votes to 2  
>> candidates, or 2 votes to 3 candidates?
>> The concentrated vote method would increase the chances that  
>> minorities with strong preferences would be represented on the  
>> Council. It would, as a result, decrease the solidarity of the  
>> NCSG as a voting bloc and reduce the need for Council candidates  
>> to try to represent the stakeholder group as a whole. Most of the  
>> members meeting here favored Option 1 because they wanted Council  
>> members to have a broader appeal, but at least one favored the  
>> concentrated method. There are also some concerns about the  
>> procedural complexity of concentrated voting.
>>
>> Geographic representation
>> ====================
>> There are 6 Council seats and 5 ICANN geographic regions. What  
>> geographic representation rule do we follow?
>> Two different options were proposed:
>> G1) A simple rule that no region can have more than two (2)  
>> council seats
>> G2) A rule that at least 4 regions must be represented in the  
>> outcome.
>> I think there was agreement that the GNSO Council position is  
>> important and very demanding, so no one should get elected to it  
>> solely because of their regional origin; they should compete with  
>> candidates from other regions on the basis of their qualifications  
>> and commitment to the job. So that is why we did not just say that  
>> the Council seats should
>>
>> Rule G1 would mean that you could have a minimum of three regions  
>> represented on the Council (2 from each of 3 regions)
>> Rule G2 would mean that 4 regions would be represented, but one  
>> region might have as many as 3 of the 6 seats
>>
>> Executive Committee – Policy Committee Structure
>> ======================================
>> Here we are just asking for comment on organizational structure.
>>
>> We seemed to come to an agreement on:
>> An _Executive Committee_ that consists of:
>> Chair
>> A Chair-appointed Secretary-Treasurer
>> Two others elected by constituencies (one vote per constituency)
>> The executive committee handled administrative tasks such as  
>> membership reviews, fund allocations, meeting agendas, voting
>>
>> A _Policy committee_ that consists of:
>> Elected GNSO Councilors
>> One representative from each constituency
>> The Policy Committee
>> Governs statements issued in name of NCSG
>> Initiates policy proceedings on behalf of NCSG
>> Can provide guidance to Councilors - upon request, no need for vote
>>
>> What do you think of this structure?
>> Apologies for the length of this message, but we do need your  
>> input on these issues
>>
>




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20081105/112bb38f/attachment.html>