RE: [council] NC Chair Election
Caroline- I am unclear about your resolution.
Are you proposing that
1. we hold elections now.
2. we waive the "multi-term" provision so that Philip could run for
election as well as other persons, and serve another 6 months if
Peter de Blanc
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf
Of Chicoine, Caroline G.
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:41 AM
To: 'Cade,Marilyn S - LGA'; 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
Cc: 'DNSO Secretariat'
Subject: RE: [council] NC Chair Election
Marilyn, while your support would suggest that you second my motion, can
you officially state so for the record so we can initiate the vote?
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 11:09 PM
To: 'Chicoine, Caroline G.'; 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
Cc: 'Grant Forsyth'; 'Philip Sheppard'; 'Thomas Roessler'; 'Alexander
Subject: RE: [council] NC Chair Election
Thank you for your clarification of your motion.
As one of the BC elected reps, I offer the following comments:
First, I support your motion to enable Philip Sheppard to stand for one
term of 6 months, as a waiver of provision of Section 1.1 of rules of
Procedure for the DNSO.
second, as I understand your email, you are recommending that since
disparate views exists on 1)rotation 2) terms 3) qualifications, that
the NC take up this as a topic of discussion.
I fully support that recommendation. In fact, the NC has been evolving,
and lacks many documented procedures; this should not be a surprise,
given it's "youth", but it is time to undertake more formalization of
Some believe that "rotation" is fair and essential and have not
addressed competency in this; others think that neutrality of the chair
is the essential ingredient and also have not addressed other factors;
others think that skill in effective group management process is the
essential element; there may be other views, which haven't been heard
yet, since we haven't
discussed this in the NC. In short, this set of issues deserves
within the NC.
Therefore, I support:
a) Caroline's resolution to waive the provision to enable Philip
Sheppard to run for a 6 month term. This enables Philip Sheppard and
others to stand for a 6 month term.
b) a further separate discussion about terms, qualifications,
neutrality, etc. outside of this election, but to take place in an
expedited manner so that further elections can be undertaken under new
From: Chicoine, Caroline G. [mailto:CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 12:37 PM
Subject: [council] NC Chair Election
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
"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
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.