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

["Cochetti, Roger" <RCochetti@verisign.com>]

It is with some regret that I found myself having to vote against Philip's resolution; particularly because its general purpose reflected the proposal of the gTLD Constituency and it clearly moves us in the right direction.  I have two modest, but important, concerns.  Given the speed with which the final resolution was introduced and voted on, however, I did not have an opportunity to air these concerns earlier (i.e. I took Friday off):

 

1) It limits each Constituency to having one "member" on each task force and committee, whereas the gTLD Constituency had originally proposed and encouraged the idea that each Constituency would have one "vote" on each task force and committee.  While we normally permit Constituencies to send non voting participants to task forces and committees as an informal practice, there is, in my view, no reason why Constituencies should not be able to designate more than one full member of a task force or committee AS LONG AS THEY STILL HAVE ONLY ONE VOTE; and

 

2) In 3.3 (c), we introduce a new concept: proposed committee/task force members must"...not also a member of the same ICANN-relevant organization as an NC member on the task force" and an "ICANN-relevant organization" is  "...defined as one that any NC member considers to be ICANN-relevant.", which means that there are no practical limits on what a Names Council Members can consider to be "an ICANN relevant organization".   Taking this to an absurd, but possible, limit, I could consider and declare that lawyers constitute "an ICANN-relevant organization", and having done so prevent two of them from serving on any task force or committee.  The term requires much greater definition.

 

If the resolution is approved, at some later date I would like to see it improved.

 

Roger

 

 

 

 

 

Roger J. Cochetti
Senior Vice President & Chief Policy Officer
VeriSign
rcochetti@verisign.com
(703) 326-2585/202-973-6600

-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 5:21 AM
To: NC (list)
Subject: [council] NC VOTE REQUIRED- Rules for non members
Importance: High

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]