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

[Stephanie Perrin]

What exactly are "compelling reasons" for rejecting a candidate?
And do we have the bandwidth to prepare for that leaders summit they are 
proposing?
SP
On 15-01-07 4:06 AM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> As noted in another message, CSG is well organized for the DC meeting. 
>  Below is a proposal from Steve.  Note that their suggested procedure 
> for Selection of GNSO Council Vice Chair is pretty much what we agreed 
> years ago but they then refused to acknowledge the agreement when we 
> nominated Wendy Seltzer. Those who were around then might recall the 
> fun when Marilyn insisted there'd been no agreement and I proceeded to 
> read out the emails in which she'd agreed.  It'd be good if we went in 
> aware of the history here and prepared to respond.
>
> What do people think of the second proposal?  I'm fine with it in 
> principle but don't know when we'd schedule it.  In the past what 
> we've done is informal gatherings with CSG (i.e. drinks) or leaders 
> (dinner in London).  We might consider a working breakfast on CD, I 
> don't know...thoughts?
>
> Bill
>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> *From: *"Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
>> *To: *Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch 
>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>, Tony Holmes 
>> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>, 
>> "lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>" 
>> <lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>>, Kristina 
>> Rosette <krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, 
>> "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>" 
>> <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>, "Elisa 
>> Cooper" <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com 
>> <mailto:Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>>, Jimson Olufuye 
>> <jolufuye at kontemporary.net <mailto:jolufuye at kontemporary.net>>, 
>> Stefania Milan <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu 
>> <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>>, "Marilyn Cade" 
>> <marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>
>> *Subject: **NCPH Intersessional Meeting Pl -- proposal for discussion *
>> *Date: *January 7, 2015 at 1:23:50 AM GMT+1
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150107/06641366/attachment.html>