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

Wed Jan 7 20:49:59 EET 2015

I would certainly like some guidelines, if not a definition.  I know if 
I were proposed, the compelling reasons would include, we hate her, she 
is a privacy nut, and she had a dissenting opinion on the EWG report.  
All non-compelling reasons, in my view.
cheers Steph
On 15-01-07 12:29 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Wouldn't we want an agreement (in writing with these guys) on what is 
> and isn't a compelling reason?  Folks who were around a few years back 
> will remember that when we nominated Wendy for GNSO Council Vice Chair 
> (it was our turn, exactly as envisaged here) they said no, and then 
> pretended not to remember we'd agreed to rotate and generally defer a 
> bit to the other side, certainly with respect to simply nominating. VC 
> is an admin position, it's not like the VCs have some imperial power 
> to set or force a substantive agenda without Council agreement, so to 
> me this seemed a bit out of scope and mildly vindictive.  So, e.g., a 
> "compelling reason" cannot be we don't like the positions the person 
> has taken in Council debates, or the strength with which they've 
> argued them.  It'd have to be more like there's a conflict of interest 
> involving some big issues that'll be addressed or gross incompetence, 
> lack of prior participation in Council work, something like that, no?
>
> Bill
>
>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org 
>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>
>> I think both of Steve's proposals are sensible and we should go with 
>> them.
>>
>> Sure there is subjectivity about what a "compelling reason" might be 
>> to reject a candidate, but I think it is reasonable request.  It 
>> provides for flexibility that everyone will want, but also advance 
>> notice about what to expect going forward.
>>
>> Meeting for an hour at the ICANN meetings could help us to work 
>> better on those issues of common concern to both sides of the house.
>>
>> Best,
>> Robin
>>
>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Matthew Shears wrote:
>>
>>> Bill - I think the second proposal is a sensible one.  Don't know 
>>> enough about the dynamics of the first to have an opinion.
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>>
>>> On 1/7/2015 9:06 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/20150107/62477a95/attachment-0001.html>