Re: [wg-d] NC Elections. Was: ga] DNSO General Assembly - RevisedAgenda

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> However, the bylaws state that nomination procedures will be 
> developed by the NC, and must be approved by the board:

Nope, it says "adopted by the NC"; it does not say "developed by the NC".
The difference is significant because the NC has no powers in itself to
write anything, it can only ask for groups to develop it and the NC can
only determine whether there is a consensus.  The NC can't even change a
spelling error.


>   (d) The GA shall nominate, pursuant to procedures adopted by the NC
>   and approved by the Board, persons to serve on the Board in those
>   seats reserved for the DNSO.

> Therefore, the obvious thing to do is to charter a working group to 
> develop those procedures...

This is that working group.


> > But all of this assumes that the GA has a mechanism for deciding what the 
> > nomination mechanism will be.
> 
> The mechanism for deciding policy is to form WGs or drafting or 
> research committees, and have the NC vote on the result.  A further 
> step is required in this case -- the ICANN Board has to approve the 
> result. 

Nope, the sole role of the Names Council over GA and WG output is whether
it represents a "consensus".  That's it.  The NC can't even touch the
language.

		--karl--