RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

With regard to election of Council Chair, an important point was made in
the RyC meeting earlier today: it is extremely beneficial if the chair
is very familiar with the Council and how it functions.  Obviously,
those who have served on the Council (past or present) are likely to
fulfill that qualification.  If we ourselves elect the chair from our
own ranks, we may lose independence of the chair unless we elect a
NomCom rep.  If we elect an existing constituency Council member as
chair and want the chair to be nonvoting, then it seems reasonable to
allow the affected constituency to fill the seat vacated by the chair
with another person.

Two of the three people who have represented the RyC on the NomCom were
in our meeting today so I asked them to share their comfort level with a
couple of the options we considered.  Both were uncomfortable with the
NomCom selecting a chair for the Council but they were less
uncomfortable with the NomCom providing a slate of candidates from which
the Council could elect a chair.  At the same time, as has already been
mentioned by several in this group, there would be a loss of
confidentiality of NomCom candidates if we went that route.

A couple of possible alternatives in addition to others already
considered are: 1) have the NomCom select a chair with clearly defined
requirements that include past experience on the GNSO Council; 2) use
the bicameral voting process to elect a chair from a list of candidates
not on the Council but who have served on the Council in the past.  I am
not advocating either of these but just trying to expand our list of
options.  In any case where we have the NomCom participate in the
process, Jon and I noted the following concern in a conversation we had
today: if for some reason the selected chair cannot fulfill a full term,
then the NomCom processes would not readily supporta timely filling of
the seat, so we would have to come up with procedures to deal with that.

It seems to me that this decision area is one where we should be able to
find a solution that we can all support.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 1:00 PM
> To: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx; Nevett, Jonathon
> Cc: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-
> > 
> > Thus given the above there are too many specifics on the Jon N
> summary.
> 
> I agree with Jon, we need to discuss the specifics to reach closure. 
> 
> > Also, the BC does not support an imposed non com chair - we 
> prefer an 
> > elected chair with majority of both houses
> 
> I suggest that you consider yielding on this, as an elected 
> chair is not acceptable to at least three other 
> constituencies on this WG. 
> While I share your rejection of Avri's wholly invented 
> concept that appointment by the Nomcom somehow gives people a 
> special relationship to advancing "the public interest," I do 
> agree that they are independent of the constituencies. If 
> ever there were a need for independence of the constituencies 
> it is in the chair position. I see no terrible inconsistency 
> between a Nomcom appointed chair and BC's position on Nomcom 
> generally. 
> 
> Keep in mind that without agreement among this group, your 
> reversion point is likely to be the BGC majority position, 
> which you have rejected as unacceptable. 
> 
> 
> 
>