Dear Vany:
Thanks for the clarifications! A few thoughts:
[ > What's the intended meaning of "must be" in the preceding sentence?
[ >Why not state "organizations which represent individual domain name
[ >holders whose interests *are* primarily non-commercial"?
[ Andrew: it "must be" because is an obligatory requisite. Your suggestion
[ makes that membership be open even to organizations that are commercials
[ but are registered as non-profit, even where there is other provisions
[ that avoids such membership. We don't want to have inconsistences.
[
Understood.
[ > What's the intended meaning of B(iii)?
[ >I trust that it is not intended to exclude an individual who works for
[ > multiple noncommercial employers. Many individuals in the noncommercial
[ >sector serve on multiple noncom boards of directors or advisory
[ >committees, or consult for more than one noncom organization. As
[ >written, B(iii) appears to say that such individuals cannot serve as a
[ >Names Council representative.
[ This paragraph means that an individual cannot represent more than one
[ organization that applies for membership in the NCDNHC. Every
[ organization has to name as a representative different persons.
[
Hmmmm. That seems unwise to me -- I would just leave it up to the noncommercial organizations to determine who the best representative of their interests is. A non-commercial membership association might choose a member who also works for a commercial entity. If that's what the organization chooses, why not just let the organization's choice stand? Same principle might apply to organizations that choose the same person to be a representative. It seems more consistent with the principle of bottom-up organization to simply allow each non-commercial organization to make its own decision.
Anyway, it's just my opinion. I don't see a conflict with the ICANN Bylaws, so it's not up to me to make a conclusion.
[ > This provision for N
[ > C alternates is not consistent with the ICANN Bylaws. Article
[ VI-B, Section
[ > 3(c) states the following: "Each Constituency shall select up to three
[ > individuals to represent that Constituency on the NC, no two of
[ whom may be
[ > citizens of the same Geographic Region...." The alternates
[ provision would
[ > effectively give a constituency six representatives for NC
[ activities (three
[ > of whom would at any given time be able to vote). The Bylaws are quite
[ > specific that up to three representatives can be named. The specific
[ > limitation has a number of purposes -- for example, the NC
[ ought to develop
[ > into a collegial body that can work together and reach
[ consensus. This is
[ > hard enough with 19 participating members; it would be
[ impossible with 38,
[ > if every NC member had an alternate.
[ Andrew, we are not naming six representatives for the Names Council. We
[ are electing three members for the Names Council, but lets say that one of
[ them have an illness and cannot vote in a specific NC meeting. Then such
[ NC representative needs someone that vote. That's why such NC
[ representatives needs an alternate: someone that votes in the name of NC
[ representative. The alternate is a person which works closely with the NC
[ representative but never acts in his/her self name. The act of an
[ alternate in a specific meeting of the NC is always as if the NC
[ representative itself is present in such meeting.
This is a clear statement of the advantages of alternates, but it does not alter my conclusion that the ICANN Bylaws (as currently written) limit each constituency to no more than three officially designated representatives. There is a good reason behind that limitation -- the Names Council is intended to be a deliberative council of individuals, not a legislative committee of represented interests. The deliberative model (embodied in the Bylaws) is inconsistent with alternates. The NC is supposed to be a group of 19 individuals who work togethe
r to reach consensus on domain name issues; that goal is much more
difficult if there are 38 individuals involved.
Keep in mind that the Bylaws do not prohibit proxy voting on important
matters (such as the election of ICANN Directors). But proxy votes are an
exception, to be used only for really important votes. Every indication is
that the NC will utilize proxy voting on important matters, to make sure
that all constituencies are fully represented.
If the NCDNHC wants to amend the ICANN Bylaws to allow official alternates,
that is definitely a possibility. But the NCDNHC must first propose it to
the Names Council for a consensus recommendation to the ICANN Board.
Best regards,
--Andrew
-------------------------------------------------------------------
andrew mclaughlin | c.f.o. and senior adviser
internet corporation for assigned names and numbers
<mclaughlin@icann.org> | <http://www.icann.org>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--- 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 - 13:20:38 PDT