Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q3. In Section 3 1.e: Mechanism for selecting house for NCAs
- To: Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q3. In Section 3 1.e: Mechanism for selecting house for NCAs
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 20:02:58 -0400
- If I remember correctly, the first reaction we got from the present
NC is that they are working under today's rules, and as such will
simply name 2 NCA to Council to be seated at this year's general
meeting. So come that meeting, we will have 3 NCA none of who are
designated to occupy any particular seat.
- If we do tie a particular NCA to a house or the houseless seat, due
to geographic diversity rules, this means that we are to some extent
locking in how regions participate (via NCAs) in Council for a good
deal of time.
I strongly support that the entire council appoints the NCSa to a
position annually, based on a process of negotiation between the
Chair, representatives of the Houses and the NCAs.
One other issue that has not been raised. The proposed wording says
"one of which shall be non-voting". The term "non-voting" is
universally used in ICANN as a code-phrase for a person who has
speaking rights but nothing else, and in particular who cannot make
or second motions. I can see nothing in any of the discussions that
led to the "non-voting" NCA that would indicate that this NCA would
lose anything except actually being allowed to participate in votes.
As such, I think that we should use words that are entirely
non-ambiguous about the rights this NCA has.
At 10/05/2009 03:06 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
Not sure I understand your comment.
Are you saying that the nomcom needs to pick 3 people this time
instead of 2. We have one person with a continuing term, as I
understand the Nomcom's plan they are selecting 2 people as per the
normal order. In this case Terry's term will span both the old
council and the new one, and I do not believe the Nomcom is planning
anything other then that. Nor do I get the impression that the Board
is requiring anything in this area. But of course they can correct my
As for the NCAs not picking who serves in the council that is true and
I don't think anyone suggested otherwise. But when the Nomcom picks
people for a 2 year term, they are not saying: 'And if the council
reorganizes we go back to zero.' That person is picked by the nomcom
for a two year term no matter how the council is reorganized.
The SG's, or some of them in any case, seem to be deciding that a
reorg'ed council means new elections, and that is a fine choice if the
SG wants to make that choice, but I see nothing that requires it to be
the case for all SGs. And SG could just decide to leave in the
council members that were sitting until the next regular election. As
far as I can tell, the choice of how an SG seats it members is up to
the SG charter as approved by the board - and subject to any
transition plans they may agree on.
Finally, i think Jon's recommendation was not that NCAs would self
appoint themselves to the council, but rather that in this first year,
they would allocate themselves by mutual agreement to a house or to
the state of homelessness, since it is too late for the Nomcom to do
that (assuming that Nomcom picking per house ends up the prevalent
On 9 May 2009, at 13:38, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
When the new Council is to be seated, the NCA's should be selected by
the Nominating Committee, just as the other council members are to be
selected by the SGs in accordance with whatever procedures they adopt.
The NCA's have no authority to select who will sit on the GNSO
The Nominating Committee has that authority. In the same way the
existing constituency representatives cannot "reappoint" themselves to
the new council, they serve there only if selected by the SG.
[mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 4:48 PM
To: avri@xxxxxxx; Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q3. In Section 3 1.e: Mechanism for
selecting house for NCAs
The RC has not taken a position on this issue, but my view is that the
Nominating Committee should decide which appointee sits in which
As part of the NomCom process, the nominees themselves should state a
preference for the three positions and such preferences should be
into account in the selection process. This way the Nominating
Committee would not select three individuals who only want to sit in
house and not the other. Similarly, a candidate might not want to sit
in either house and only as the non-voting at large appointee.
For this year, we should have the NCAs themselves select which house
sit. If they can't work it, I would be ok with the GNSO Chair making
[mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:30 PM
Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q3. In Section 3 1.e: Mechanism for
house for NCAs
Q3. In Section 3 1.e: Mechanism for selecting house for NCAs
We need to describe exactly how the Nomcom Appointees (NCAs) are to be
assigned to a house.
There have been several methods suggested including but not restricted
to the following:
- Houses Pick (the current text in the by-laws doc)
- Nomcom selects specifically for each house
- NCA choose among themselves
One method has to be chosen and described in sufficient detail in the
It has additionally been asked, whether this needs to be described in
the by-laws or is an issue that could be documented in Council Rules
Procedures (related to a larger issue of differentiating between
that in the by-Laws and things that can be left to Rules and
documents. This larger issue is related separately in Question 7)