RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Updated Draft

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

I assume the Bylaws would need to be changed to accommodate bicameral
voting.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
        Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:01 AM
        To: Metalitz, Steven; mueller@xxxxxxx; alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx;
gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Updated Draft
        
        

        Alan:

         

        Perhaps the ICANN Bylaws X.3.3 will give you some comfort on
this point.  

         

        "A GNSO Council member selected by the Nominating Committee may
be removed for cause stated by a three-fourths (3/4) vote (see Section
5(2) of this Article
<http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.2#X-5.2> ) of all
members of the GNSO Council (excluding the member to be removed),
subject to approval by the ICANN Board."

         

        Any removal is subject to ICANN Board approval.

         

        Thanks.

         

        Jon

         

         

        
________________________________


        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
        Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:50 AM
        To: mueller@xxxxxxx; alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx;
gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Updated Draft

         

        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.