Re: CHARTER - FINAL DECISION

From: Dr. Nii Quaynor (quaynor@ghana.com)
Date: Sun Jan 30 2000 - 14:23:01 PST


> The fact is, people from different geographic regions often have different
> views on policy issues. That is why we have the geographic diversity
> requirements!
> The GD requirements make it clear that, for example, someone from North
> American is unlikely to be the best representative for someone from
Africa,
> and vice versa.
>

we are in a global economy and the 5 regions should have direct and clear
representation.

> Now, in Kent's proposal, if an elected NC member from North America is
> unable to attend a meeting, the people who elected that person will be
> represented by a person from Africa or Europe or whoever is next in line
on
> the AdCom. It is possible that the people who elected the original NC
member
> do not even know the alternate, have never met, and do not support his or
> her views.

the person from north america should be acting in the interest of adcom
ncdnhc and *not* for north america. icann is structured to be global with a
geographic diversity requirement.

> Of course, this works both ways. If the original NC rep is from Africa and
> is unable to attend the meeting, the Africans may be represented by a
North
> American or a European.
>
> This seems to be to be self-evidently undesirable. An alternate is
supposed
> to be someone who stands in the place of the original NC rep and
represents
> the views of the ELECTED person they are substituted for.
>

too personalized. say reflects the view of adcom.

> We need to think a bit more carefully about the political situation here.
If
> the Non-commercial constituency was a cohesive group of people who all
knew
> each other and shared the same basic outlook, the AdCom-method of
> designating alternates would work. But we are not cohesive.
>

i am concerned about the political situation of the contested proposal where
there may be denial of adequate participation from other regions.

> I have proposed a voting method that would allow all members of the
> constituency to distribute their votes across geographic regions. No one
> seems to be very interested in it, because everyone is afraid that people
> from other regions will play too big a role in electing "their" NC
> representative. What does this tell us? It tells us that geographic
> differences are very important, and everyone seems to want to preserve
those
> differences in the NC.
>

we know of NAs influence in dnso and icann in general. africas does not come
near. distributing the votes makes no difference since you cannot assure me
eg. an african must be participating.

> Very well. If you want to preserve geographic representation on the NC,
then
> you must vote for alternate method #1, which allows a geographical NC
> representative to select an alternate that supports their own views.

sounds too selfish for an ncdnhc! they should represent and vote the
positions in the constituency as captured in the adcom operations. ncdnhc
represents the poor small non profit organizations (outreach)

nii

---
You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: Kent@SONGBIRD.COM
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1729M@lyris.isoc.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 09 2000 - 13:20:37 PDT