RE: 5.a.1 Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus Current Thinking

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

It's fine with me.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
        Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 5:04 PM
        To: Milton L Mueller; Avri Doria; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: 5.a.1 Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus
Current Thinking
        
        

        Does anyone strenuously object to the following for Board seat
elections - it is Philip's language with a change to 60% and includes
NomCom in the voting?  Thanks.  Jon

         

        Board Elections -- Contracted Parties Council elects Seat 13 by
a 60% vote and User/Non-Contracted Party Council elects Seat 14 by a 60%
vote; BUT both sets may not be held by individuals who are employed by,
an agent of, or receive any compensation from an ICANN-accredited
registry or registrar, nor may they both be held by individuals who are
the appointed representatives to one of the GNSO user stakeholder
groups.

         

         

        -----Original Message-----
        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
        Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 4:40 PM
        To: Avri Doria; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: 5.a.1 Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] GNSO Consensus
Current Thinking

         

         

        Election of Board members by the entire Council has in fact been
a way

        of ensuring that the Board member has been elected by half the
group.

        Especially if Nomcom members vote, then you could elect a chair
that 2

        of the 4 SGs strenuously oppose. Not acceptable. Indeed, it
makes no

        sense to adopt the bicameral approach and then not use it when
it does

        the best job of balancing the different interests. 

         

        The entire history of GNSO Council Board elections should refute
the

        pretense that a Board member elected by the Council is somehow
of

        broader appeal and more accountable to the entire community. 

         

        > -----Original Message-----

        > From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-

        > Also, I still believe that the Board representative should be
elected

        > by the entire council and not just one of the chambers.  i
think

        > making one chamber responsible for the nomination is a good

        > alternative, but i think ti weakens the Board member to have
only been

        > elected by half the group.

        > 

        > 

        > a.