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

[Avri Doria]

yes

On 07-Jan-15 12:29, 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/20150107/43b48217/attachment-0001.html>