RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Updated Draft

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I would be delighted with that. All the more so if they see fit to 
replace the person at the sdame time as they ratify the removal. Alan
At 25/07/2008 12:06 PM, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:
> 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] 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.