RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Updated Draft

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

No comfort whatsoever. This is one of the By-Laws that will be 
changed in line with whatever the outcome of the GNSO reorg. is.
The Board is unlikely to object if it accepted the new rules. I am 
trying to am Suggesting making the rules less subject to gaming.
Alan

At 25/07/2008 09:01 AM, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:
> 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 
> <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.2#X-5.2>Section 5(2) 
> of this Article) 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.