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

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

i too was confused and have no problem with michael's inclusion in the task
force

ken stubbs

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>
To: <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 7:35 PM
Subject: RE: [council] NC VOTE REQUIRED- Rules for non members


> 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]
> >
>