Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Updated Draft

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

so maybe this should be added to the write-up since this would replace  
what is in the by-laws if approved.
a.

On 25 Jul 2008, at 15:01, 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) 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.