Re: [council] FW: [ga] GA Adcom Election Committee

[Richard Lindsay <richard@interq.ad.jp>]

Greetings,

I certainly see your logic, the problem now is going to be dealing
with the fact that the GA (that is the mailing list) has come to
the decision that they should start forming this body.  I believe
the "problem/requirement" is the belief that the General Assembly
should be an independent entity that votes, and makes its own
determination.  Not to mention that there is an extremely strong
mistrust of the Names Council.

I am not sure of a solution for this, but I believe we should
look closely at the discussions, and attempt to come up with
some sort of compromise.  One thought, is perhaps to designate
the DNSO ICANN Board reps to be the AdCom, and the runners
up in the election could fill up any remaining positions if it
is determined that there should be more than 3 "seats."  Or
perhaps the DNSO Board reps and the GA chairman would
represent the AdCom...

I haven't thought this through quite yet, so someone attack
my logic please.   I doubt any compromise would please everyone.

Theresa, has any thing of this kind come up on the Committee D
discussions?  It seems somewhat related doesn't it?

See you all (figuratively) in a couple hours,
Richard

Dennis Jennings wrote:

> Joe,
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with you.  The idea of a GA elected AdCom is
> completely at variance with the By Laws and it (the AdCom) will most likely
> attempt to usurp the role of the NC and its support staff (to be
> appointed).  This is a very bad idea that undermines the existing
> structures.
>
> I wonder what problem / requirement is being asserted here ?
>
> Dennis

> >
> > In my role as unofficial legal advisor to the Council, let me offer the
> > following.  My reading of the Bylaws is not compatible with the creation
> of
> > some GA AdCom structure.  The Bylaws provide only for a Chair of the GA,
> > who is appointed by the NC.  In addition, the Bylaws contemplate the the
> > work of the DNSO should be done in working groups and drafting committees
> > under the management of the NC.  The GA, as the Bylaws are now written,
> is
> > the pool from which those groups or committees are drawn, but does not
> have
> > a direct role in the development or determination of consensus, nor any
> > other specific duty other than to serve as a source of nominees for the
> > Board, who are then selected by the NC.  The Bylaws do not contemplate
> any
> > circumstances when the GA would vote on any issue or elect anyone to
> > anything.  Thus, an elected GA AdCom would seem to be not only
> superfluous
> > but also potentially the source of tension with the NC-elected Chair and
> > the NC's role to manage the work of the DNSO.