RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Updated Draft

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

What are you saying Alan.  Are you opposed to the present language for
removal of NomCom reps?  Please be specific about what you oppose and
why.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
        Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:04 AM
        To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Updated Draft
        
        
        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 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
<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.