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

["Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I do not strenuously object, indeed I like this language. 

--MM

 

________________________________

From: Nevett, Jonathon [mailto:jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
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.