[council] NC Chair Election

["Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>]

First, I wanted to respond to the gTLD posting:

You state the proposed amendment would "(b) allow the Chair in office to
continue to
serve until a successor is appointed -- apparently only to be removed by a
two-thirds vote of the Council."  This was meant to cover a situation if for
whatever reason an election is delayed or if there is no one interested in
running.  Otherwise, in such situations, there would be no Chair.  This
provision was not meant to extend the term of the Chair otherwise.

I also think comparing the NC Internal Rules of Procedure to the U.S.
Constitution is a tad bit dramatic!

Moreover, if it is not clear, nothing in this amendment is preventing
someone running against Philip.  Further, having been on the NC when we have
been "booed" at meetings and have been stuck in procedural after procedural
issue, the fact that we have now focused on substantive matters is due
greatly in part to Philip.  To the extent the DNSO has been criticized, I am
not aware that it has ever been because of the length of the term of the
Chair, except of course the recent emails from two members of the GA sparked
in response to the gTLD's posting.  I am surprised that the gTLD
Constituency now believes that the NC's Rules of Procedure needs to be
subject to a full blown consensus process given that it never raised this
concern with the earlier three versions of the Rules of Procedure.

Nevertheless, since I have received differing input from everybody, I do not
believe I can draft a motion that would be warmly received by most of the
NC, and believe that further discussion by the NC on the issue is necessary.
In this regard, I ask that the issue regarding the rules for election of the
NC Chair be placed on the agenda for February's call.  

As a result, I withdraw my proposed draft motion and rather present a more
narrow motion directed to what I had originally desired which was to request
a waiver of the rule prohibiting an individual from running for more than
two terms so that Philip could run again for another 6 month term.  Again,
the motion would only allow Philip to run for a 6 month term (i.e., I am mot
requesting any changes in the term of the NC Chair) and it does not prevent
anyone else from running against him. 

On a personal note since I will note be on the NC after the Feb call, having
been a past Chair, it is a very time consuming position (assuming it is done
right) and no one should take the position lightly.  As we know, the DNSO is
still in a shaky state and the NC needs a strong, committed leader to carry
it forward.

On that note, here is my proposed motion:

WHEREAS the current Rules of Procedure for the DNSO (version 4) adopted by
the Names Council on 26 February 2001 (see
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020117.NCprocedures-v4.0.html), provide:

"1. Names Council Chair
1.1 Election.  The NC Chair will be elected by the members of the NC by
simple majority vote and will hold office for a period of six months. One
renewal, subject to a fresh vote, of six months will be allowed. A retiring
Chair will not be eligible for re-election for a period of one year."

WHEREAS, under these rules, the current NC Chair, Philip Shepard, is
ineligible to run for re-election to the NC Chair;

NOW, THEREFORE, the NC moves as follows:

Solely for the purposes of the NC Chair election taking place on February
14, 2002, the NC moves to waive the provision of Section 1.1 of the Rules of
Procedure for the DNSO which prohibits a retiring NC Chair from running for
re-election for a period of one year.