ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-consensus-wg]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Updated Draft

  • To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Updated Draft
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:00:40 -0400

Past the cut-off, but...

In the latest draft (with threshold reverted to 75% of just one house), the words "for cause" were added, and that makes it something I can live with.

I would really like to see a way to replace the person in those cases though.

Alan

At 25/07/2008 10:18 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
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 <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.



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy