[gnso-osc-ops] RE: Revised Section 3.8 and Chapter 4.0

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Works for me, Ken.  

 

Thanks,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

President

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 

  _____  

From: Ken Bour [mailto:ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 12:35 PM
To: 'Ron Andruff'; gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Revised Section 3.8 and Chapter 4.0

 

GCOT Members:

 

In light of Ron's response to my comment about limiting the selection of a
TA to the "membership" of a SG, I propose the following language change to
4.5.3-c(i):  

 

"In selecting a Temporary Alternate, the appointing organization is expected
to shall choose, from within its membership ranks, a responsible individual
who is not a current voting GNSO Council member, but is otherwise
knowledgeable on the matter at issue and qualified to represent the
appointing organization's interests."

 

Will these edits accomplish the objective?   

 

Ken

 

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 10:47 AM
To: 'Ken Bour'; gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] Revised Section 3.8 and Chapter 4.0

 

Dear all,

 

I accept the modifications in Section 3.8 in total.

 

I accept the modifications in Section 4.0, with the following responses to
Ken's comments:

 

*        Re: 4.5.3. c, i [Comment KAB2], specifically   limit a SG in
choosing a TA from within its organization (i.e. bonafide member)  I feel
the TA must be a bonafide member of the SG.  If an SG feels that it needs to
take expert advice on a matter before the GNSO, it should do so and then
instruct its TA member on how to vote.

 

*        Re: 4.5.3. c, i [Comment KAB3], specifically   We probably don't
want the TA remedy to become a 'back door' for an otherwise term-limited
Councilor to reappear at Council meetings as a substitute voter.  Unless
GCOT thinks it should undertake a new task to draft broader GNSO Council
membership criteria, I recommend at least highlighting "Term Limits" to
avoid potential confusion.  I agree that we do not want to leave a loophole
that someone will surely try to take advantage of sooner or later.  One
thing that has been lacking in ICANN for the past 10-years, but has improved
somewhat in the last few, is having 'fresh faces' replace those who have
'squatted' on the GNSO council for too many years.  For this reason, I feel
strongly that a former councilor who was term limited out of the council
should be excluded from serving as a TA.  Having said that, if the Work Team
feels that (1) the term limited ex-councilor would be more capable to get
up-to-speed on an issue more quickly than another member; or (2) the
likelihood of an ex-councilor TA having an SOI and bio already on file with
ICANN, meaning one less issue to be addressed, I would concede my stated
position to agree to allow a term-limited councilor being put forward as a
TA.

 

As for highlighting "Term Limits", I agree with Ken's recommendation.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

President

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 1:44 PM
To: gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] Revised Section 3.8 and Chapter 4.0

 

GCOT Members:

 

Attached are revised versions of Section 3.8-Absences & Vacancies and
Chapter 4.0-Voting.   Per the team's direction on 19 May, I accepted all
prior edits; the attached documents primarily show revisions pertaining to
House NCAs remedies.  

 

As I indicated in my earlier note to the list, the changes were more
extensive than I anticipated; however, I believe that these versions
accomplish the team's intention to permit Proxy Voting and Temporary
Alternate remedies for the two House NCAs.  

 

I made a few additional edits not related specifically to the NCA issue
because, pretty much every time I reconsider these procedures, I notice
language that can be improved and/or clarified.   Since time is of the
essence, I won't attempt to enumerate all of the edits in this email because
they are redlined and also commented where I thought additional explanation
would help rationalize the amendment.  

 

I will stay abreast of list email traffic and be prepared to work diligently
toward creating a final clean version by end of business tomorrow.  

 

Ken Bour