Page History
In response to the working group report on GNSO Restructuring, the Board has asked the ALAC for comments on a number of issues. Below are the questions and Alan's suggested replies.
Implications regarding the selection of Board seats
Currently, Board members are elected by the entire GNSO Council. It has been perceived that this has led (unfairly) to Board members always coming from the Registrar/Registry community. The new proposal has each House electing its won Board member with the condition that both Board members cannot "come from" a user background, and both cannot come from the registrar/registry background. This is problematic, because it means that each Board member does not really represent the entire GNSO Council as envisioned by the Bylaws. After the fact, it was also realized that there may be no easy way to transition to this model.
Various methods have been suggested that each House nominates candidates, but both houses vote. But this was not accepted.
Our statement (if approved) already addresses this question.
Implications of new voting thresholds for policy development and other Council operating matters and how they compare with current voting thresholds
The thresholds seem to be a reasonable compromise amongst the existing GNSO constituencies and the ALAC has no specific problem with them. It is possible that they will prove to be unmanagable in some cases, but that is hard to predict one way or another.
Consideration of implications regarding the future roles ofNominating Committee appointees, which may create pivot points because of the "simple majorities" in the proposed new thresholds
As indicated in ALAC statement, we regret the disenfranchisement of one NomCom appointee, and the possible dilution of voting rights of the two others. We are not immediately worried about swing votes in majority-class votes.
Consideration of the potential effects of various stakeholder representation options proposed by the working group
As per the ALAC statement, we favour the lower ranges of suggested stakeholder group sizes. this will likely impact the number of councillors per current commercial constituencies, but all others will remain the same or grow. If and when new constituencies are added, finding a way to ensure that their views and need are represented on council my well be problematic, but that is a problem forced upon the GNSO by the stakeholder group model forced by the BGC report.
Evaluation of whether the proposed Council structure will be understandable to the outside community and open enough to encourage formation and participation of new constituency groups; and
Although the final proposal is less complex that some of those considered by the working group, the new concept of both houses and stakeholder groups does add significant complexity from an outsider's point of view and even to those inside of ICANN. As noted in the ALAC statement, this multiple hierarchy organization will complicate both the formation of constituencies, and the management of them. Explicit actions will need to be taken to minimize the impact.
Consideration of transition issues and how transition could occur in an orderly and predictable manner.
The proposed council is sufficiently different that clearly By-Law changes are required, including revamping of at least part of the PDP By-Laws. It is hard to understand how the new structure could function prior to such changes.
