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:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 11:09 PM
To: 'Chicoine, Caroline G.'; 'email@example.com'
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 these processes.
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 discussion
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 rules.
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
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
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 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.