[wg-review] Proposal draft (part 2)

["Sotiropoulos" <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

All,

 

First, there is the matter of Rod Dixon's comment for an additional clause to be added to the recommendation regarding "consensus" management.  The recommendation now reads as follows:

 

 

Recommendation:  In light of the confusion and lack of reference with regards to what constitutes a “consensus” mechanism in the DNSO, the formal adoption of a standard 2/3 definition of “consensus” is recommended.  This 2/3 formula is proposed as a standard for the purposes of research or drafting  committees, working groups and other bodies of the GA, and should be based on the number of participants voting within the respective groups.  In other words, assuming that there are 40 members on a given list and only 30 exercise their right to vote, then 20 would be considered a “consensus”.  In the event of someone not agreeing with the options provided for in a vote ballot, an abstention option should also be mandated for any ballot, which option establishes participation in the voting process without committing to any of the other alternatives. In this way, a clear distinction between abstaining and not voting is established.  In addition, it is recommended that any formal proposals resulting from the 2/3 participant vote “consensus” formula, within any DNSO group/committee, include any dissenting statement(s), provided they are substantive in nature and not simply evidence of disagreement.

Now for the fun part...  I have continued the proposal draft with the next section:

C) Representation

With respect to the overall representative quality of the existing NC in terms of its relation to the current GA, it has been argued by many WG members that the existing NC selection model is not truly representative of a GA that includes, but is not limited to, the 7 existing constituencies and all other interested parties subsumed within it.  Indeed, subsection B of Section 1 of the ICANN Bylaws Article VI-B explicitly refers to a “a General Assembly ("GA"), consisting of all interested individuals and entities.” [Emphasis added]  To date, there has been a good deal of discussion in the WGr regarding the amendment of the current Constituency roll to include an Individual’s Constituency.  By and large, the general sentiment within the WG Review reflects favourably on the establishment of such a Constituency.

According to subsection B of Section 2 of the ICANN Bylaws Article VI-B, the NC “shall consist of representatives, selected in accordance with Section 3(c) of this Article, from each Constituency recognized by the Board pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section 3 of this Article.”  As the very language of Subsection B of Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws Article VI-B tacitly indicates the genuine possibility of reviewing the Constituency model by its reference to the 7 “initial” Constituencies, it is reasonable to assume that some revision of the Constituency organization was considered a very real possibility when the Bylaws were framed.  Consequently, there is no reason to believe that the current Constituency list was meant to remain without amendment ad infinitum.

Further, there was a considerable amount of discussion around proposals for the dissolution of the Constituency structure altogether.  In fact, a large majority in the WGr appeared to favour reorganization along such lines.  Options discussed included the election of the Names Council directly from the body of the GA itself.  Although this idea was indeed popular, it represents a long-term commitment and perspective, which may not be in order at this point, due to the still nascent nature of the DNSO and ICANN in general, and the immediate need for representation of Individuals within the DNSO.  A restructuring of the DNSO based on dissolution of the Constituency Structure would take a good deal of time and discussion, whereas the need to establish a voice for Individuals within the current DNSO is immediate.  However, this discussion should not be simply discarded, it should be revisited at a later point in time, pending a review of a DNSO that included an Individual’s Constituency (among others).

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board immediately begin seeking proposals for the implementation and organization of an Individual’s Constituency.  Such proposals are not to be sought from any existing ICANN organization or any other appointed committee/group, including but not limited to the NC and any present constituency within the GA.  Instead, in keeping with the spirit of a “bottom-up” mandate and process, it is proposed that a free, and open-membership WG be established as soon as possible, for the purpose of drafting a set of proposals for an individual’s constituency that will be submitted directly to the BoD.  Such an open-membership WG may include members of the other existing Constituencies, but it must be self-organizing, and should adhere to a mandated 2/3 participant vote “consensus” formula.

 

[***Please Note:  I have not included URL references for this section at this juncture as there are simply too many to list and I've not reread all of them.  I will be including a selection with the final draft, and I encourage any input on this wise]

 

Also, there is still at least one more section I would like to include in the Proposal draft, and I have not completed it yet.  I hope to do so by later this evening, and I will post it ASAP. 

 

Regards,

 

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

        Working Chair, WG Review 

 

P.S.  I've been invited to a Pessah meal (my first ever!) so I won't be around till much later tonight.