Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Updated Draft

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

Agree with Milton that one house should play no role in removal of other 
house's nom comm appointee
Sent via blackberry mobile. Please excuse tone and typoes. 

----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
<gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thu Jul 24 22:34:13 2008
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Updated Draft

Alan, your points about terminology are well taken. 

On the other hand I think your idea that Nomcom appointees are in imminent 
danger of being removed through some conspiracy of hostile representative 
groups is far-fetched. To put it mildly. 

 

Is it possible under existing rules to remove Nomcom reps? If it is, then why 
would the threat be any greater now than it was before? If it is not, then 
let’s dispense with the removal and retain the status quo. My understanding was 
that Jon’s thresholds were all attempts to translate existing voting thresholds 
into the terms of the new bicameral model. 

 

--MM

 

 

________________________________

Lastly, I am increasingly uncomfortable with the 75% of one house threshold to 
remove a NomCom appointee. This is a perfect setup for some future House to 
decide their NomCom appointee is too obstreperous, and decide to remove them 
(and with no viable way of a replacement being selecting in a reasonable 
time-frame). Given how receptive much of this WG has been to the idea of NomCom 
appointees, this simply does not have a good feel to it. I suggest that 1/2 of 
the other house must support removal as well.