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

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

I have no objection to Michael's inclusion. It seems like a good idea!

peter

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org] On Behalf
Of erica
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 7:19 PM
To: Milton Mueller; philip.sheppard@aim.be; council@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [council] NC VOTE REQUIRED- Rules for non members


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]
>