RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Updated Draft

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At this point, let's leave replacement up to the Board.  Thanks.  Jon

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 12:01 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Updated Draft

 

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
<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] 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.