Dear Milton:
Perhaps I'm not being clear. My suggestion is that the NCDNHC rely on AdCom
members for proxy votes, not as officially designated alternates. I
interpret the Bylaws to be inconsistent with official alternates; however,
the NC can choose to allow proxy voting for important votes, as it did for
the election of ICANN Directors.
Setting aside my interpretation that the Bylaws language clearly prohibits
the naming of "official" alternates (by which I mean individuals who must by
right be added to the NC's mailing list and teleconferences -- after all, an
NC member can always choose to forward NC email to other members of her/his
constituency), perhaps it would be helpful to explain what I take to be the
purpose behind the explicit limitation set forth in the Bylaws.
Structurally, alternates are not consistent with the model of a deliberative
council of individuals, unlike a legislative committee of designated
representatives. In my view, the NC will have much greater difficulty
reaching consensus if it is composed of 38 regularly alternating
individuals, rather than 19 dedicated and commited members. Given that the
NC does most of its work via email and uses proxy voting for important
matters, the need for alternates is not apparent to me, while the harm
entailed in doubling the effective size of the NC is. More generally, the
use of alternates implies that the NC consists of interested representatives
of constituency interests, rather than individuals who happen to have been
chosen by different constituency groups. In my view, each NC representative
should be accountable to the DNSO as a whole, rather than just to a single
constituency group. NC reps bear a responsibility to keep the constituency
informed and involved, etc., but as NC reps they are responsible for
advancing the cause of consensus in the DNSO as a whole.
Bottom line: As a matter of Bylaws interpretation, I just don't agree that
3 + 3 = 3.
If you want to allow alternates, I suggest that you propose to the NC an
amendment to the ICANN Bylaws. As you know, we will soon be launching the
first annual review of the DNSO; it seems like the question of alternates
would be a good subject to take up in that context.
--Andrew
[ -----Original Message-----
[ From: bounce-ncdnhc-discuss-1748@lyris.isoc.org
[ [mailto:bounce-ncdnhc-discuss-1748@lyris.isoc.org]On Behalf Of Milton
[ Mueller
[ Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 4:04 PM
[ To: vany@sdnp.org.pa
[ Cc: NCDNHC; mclaughlin@icann.org
[ Subject: Re: Schedule of NCDNHC
[
[
[ Andrew:
[ Your proposed solution to the alternate problem -- using the
[ extra AdCom members
[ -- suffers from the same problem you identify here:
[
[ > > This provision for NC 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).
[
[ If one accepts this interpretation, use of the AdCom would also
[ effectively give
[ the constituency five representatives. Therefore, you must be
[ proposing that there
[ be no alternates.
[
[ However, I think your reading of the by-laws is incorrect. The
[ NCDNHC charter does
[ elect "up to three individuals to represent [the] Constituency on
[ the NC." I do
[ not see how this language proscribes the use of alternates, as
[ long as we still
[ have three votes.
[
[ The clear intent of the by-laws is to give each constituency
[ three votes on the
[ NC. There is no information in the record of the by-laws'
[ drafting, and nothing in
[ the language itself, that addresses the issue of alternates.
[ Whether an alternate
[ counts as an alternate or as an "additional" NC representative is
[ a m
atter of
[ interpretation. You have chosen to interpret the rules in a way
[ that effectively
[ prevents alternates. Why?
[
[ We find this unacceptable, given the NCDNHC's clear need for
[ alternates [most of
[ our organizations cannot afford full-time, paid lobbyists].
[
[
[ > > 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.
[
[ Alternates are not full NC members. They need not be part of the
[ collegial,
[ consensus-building process. They are simply there to vote and
[ voice opinions when
[ the normal NC rep cannot make a meeting. We fully intend, indeed
[ REQUIRE, that our
[ alternates be fully coordinated with the official NC
[ representative. So there is
[ no issue of having 38 NC members rather than 19.
[
[
[
[ ---
[ You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: mclaughlin@pobox.com
[ To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[ leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1729M@lyris.isoc.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