Re: [council] NC VOTE REQUIRED- Rules for non members

["erica" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

Although I agree that it is useul to have 'new blood' on the UDRP TF, I
confess that the rationale for excluding all previous members of the
original drafting committee is unclear.   So long as there is 'new blood', I
have no objection to including some members of the original committee.

erica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
To: <philip.sheppard@aim.be>; <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 4:54 AM
Subject: Re: [council] NC VOTE REQUIRED- Rules for non members


> Philip:
> Might I at this time request an amendment/exception to the
> vote on the UDRP Task Force?
>
> You will recall that there was some confusion as to who was
> on the original "small drafting committee" that wrote the UDRP.
> When we voted to exclude these original members, it was not clear
> who we were excluding. I know that I am not the only one who
> was unclear about this.
>
> The relevance of this to NCDNHC is that we have active in our
> constituency a legal scholar, Michael Froomkin, who is ready and
> willing to participate in the TF as the NCDNHC representative.
> I was of the impression that he was NOT a member of the small
> drafting committee, but I learned later that he was added to it
> halfway through.
>
> Had I known that Michael would be excluded by that provision
> I would have argued against it.
>
> If other NC members don't object, could I ask for an exception
> in this case, so the Froomkin would be eligible? He is really the
> most qualified person, and, additionally, actually willing to work.
>
> >>> "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> 07/06/01 05:21AM >>>
> Thank you everyone for your contributions which were ALL mutually
compatible - well done. Accordingly I have incorporated changes into the
draft which you will find below. The key change here is that for flexibility
we have extended non-NC participation to committees as well but with
safeguards such that only NC members can vote where there is a delegated
authority. This is also a legal requirement (as Louis reminded me).
> So I would like to formally propose this amendment to the DNSO rules of
procedure for adoption.  A seconder please and your votes by e -mail LATEST
midnight your time zone Tuesday 10 July.
>
> Philip.
>
> [start draft v3 ]
>
> 3. NC committees and task forces
>
> 3.1 Types From time to time the NC may form sub-groups. These are usually
of three types. Each type may form and be responsible for further sub-groups
from within their membership.
>
>
> a) Interim committee - a preparatory group of around 3-5 NC members from
different constituencies charged with turning an idea into a proposed action
plan or writing terms of reference. The interim committee is dissolved
following NC adoption of its output and/or the setting up of a new group to
act upon that output.
>
> b) Committee - a small group of around 3-5 from different constituencies
which has typically been delegated a limited authority from the NC.
>
> c) Task Force - a group equally representative of each NC constituency
(typically one from each) and typically charged with forming a
recommendation to the NC or implementing an agreed NC action plan.
>
>
> 3.2 Chair
>
> The chair of an interim committee, committee or task force is appointed by
the NC. In the case of a task force the NC typically chooses to ratify the
election of a chair by the task force itself. The chair must be an NC
member.
>
>
> 3.3 Composition of committees and task forces
>
> Both type-b committees and type-c task forces may comprise NC members
and/or nominees from outside of the NC provided that:
>
> a) the nominee is nominated by a member of the NC and be a member of the
nominees' constituency or, where there is GA involvement, be nominated by
the chair of the GA and be a member of the GA
>
> b) a constituency nominee has the support of the three NC members of the
constituency
>
> c) the nominee is not also a member of the same ICANN-relevant
organisation as an NC member on the task force, the NC member taking
priority at any time
>
> d) no two nominees are members of the same ICANN-relevant organisation,
the first nominee taking priority
>
> e) there are at least two NC members of the task force from different
constituencies
>
> f) regardless of the number of members of the group no constituency nor
the general assembly may have more than one vote
>
> g) where authority has been delegated by the NC, a simple majority must be
NC members, those NC members hold the delegated authority and only those NC
members can vote.
>
>
> Note: An ICANN-relevant organisation is defined as one that any NC member
considers to be ICANN-relevant.
>
>
> 3.4 Working group
>
> In addition to the above groups the NC will from time to time form a DNSO
working group (WG) with a membership open to all DNSO participants. The WG
objective is to formulate positions on policies, facilitate the development
of consensus support for policies and to produce a report to the NC
highlighting these positions and level of support. See the separate
Procedures for Working Groups for full detail [in preparation].
>
>
> 3.5 Variations
>
> Specific variations to the above guidelines may exist within the DNSO
rules of procedures, such specific variations taking precedence. Any other
variation requires the approval of the NC.
>
>
> [end draft]
>