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

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Stephanie,

Where do you see the word summit? They are suggesting 1 hour meeting during
icann meeting, we had before informal gathering and the proposal is  to get
somethimg more formal.

Rafik
On Jan 8, 2015 12:54 AM, "Stephanie Perrin" <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

>  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>
>  *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>
>  *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 listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150108/11f24f43/attachment-0001.html>