[EC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for discussion

[avri doria]

Hi,

One is pretty much the method that was established several years ago. Then it was only for 2 cycles. Then they wanted to abrogate it and we went into so-called ad hoc mode. Sure let's do this until they decided they don't want to anymore. Like when we pick someone they don't want.

And if the leadership wants to meet for an hour per meeting and you want to formalize it, no big deal.

avri

Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> </div><div>Date:01/06/2015  7:42 PM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>, ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org </div><div>Cc:  </div><div>Subject: [EC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for	discussion </div><div>
</div>Hi everyone,

proposals from CSG with the regard to next week meeting.
I am happy with proposal #2, I would even be tempted to have regular confcall with them between ICANN meetings if it helps to discuss some topics. for proposal #1 , I think that is not far from what discussed previously about rotation but looking for your input here.

on other side, is there any proposal we want to put on table with the regard to NCPH internal matters?

Thanks,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com>
Date: 2015-01-07 9:23 GMT+09:00
Subject: NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for discussion
To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org" <lori.schulman at ascd.org>, Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net>, Stefania Milan <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>


Fellow Non-contracted party house leaders,

 

As discussed during some of our planning calls for the NCPH intersessional meeting, our discussion of ?In-House? issues regarding the functioning of our House and the fulfillment of its responsibilities could be facilitated by having some concrete proposals on the table prior to our arrival in Washington.

 In that spirit, and with the endorsement of the Commercial Stakeholder Group executive committee, I offer the following proposals for your consideration, and for discussion both via e-mail prior to the intersessional meeting and during our face to face discussion in Washington, currently scheduled for next Monday morning (?slot C?).  Please feel free to share these proposals with your colleagues as appropriate.

1.  Selection of GNSO Council Vice Chair: We propose to replace the current ad hoc selection system with the following:  The privilege to nominate a candidate for Vice Chair should be rotated annually between the two Stakeholder Groups.  Since a counselor from the non-commercial side (David Cake) has been selected each of the past two years, we propose that the commercial side exercise this privilege in 2015, non-commercial in 2016.  For election, the nominee would have to win an absolute majority of votes (currently 7) including at least one vote from each stakeholder group, in a ?nominee v. none of the above? poll.  (The NCA appointee to our house would continue to be eligible to vote.)  Both sides would commit not to reject the nominee of the other side other than for compelling reasons that are communicated in advance to the other side.  Finally, we would set the clear expectation that the vice chair would keep both sides of the House informed of relevant activities within the Council, including by meeting with each side of the House upon request, at least once each  calendar quarter.

2.  ?Hard-wiring? House leadership meeting into ICANN meeting schedule:  We propose that both sides agree that, at each ICANN public meeting (beginning with Buenos Aires) , a one-hour slot will be reserved for a meeting of leadership of the groups making  up the House, to discuss current issues of mutual concern. (If there is mutual agreement and it is logistically feasible, this slot could be made into a broader meeting of House participants attending the ICANN meeting.)  Agenda for the meeting would be negotiated in advance among the groups, and the meeting would be recorded and transcribed for those members of the groups unable to attend.

These proposals are made in the context of the existing structure of the NCPH (and of the Council as a whole), and could require adjustment if those structures change.   

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these proposals.  I look forward to your comments and reactions. 

Steve Metalitz, IPC Vice President   

 

 

 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20150106/ff35b930/attachment-0001.html>