RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Updated Draft

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.