Please, why dont we do the simple and obvious thing suggested by several
people and that is: elect 5 persons to adcom; the top 3 go to NC and the
other 2 in adcom but mat serve as proxy/alternates.
i dont see all the complexity etc.
well, sorry and regards,
Nii
> Maybe if in the charter is especified that an "alternate" is not a member
> of the NC...would be OK for ICANN bylaws?
>
> But I want you to take in count that in NC meetings will always be 19 or
> less people. Never the NCDNHC will be represented by more that three
> individuals designated by NCDNHC to act in such meetings.
>
> I think that taking in count this fact, maybe the "alternate" figure is
> not against ICANN bylaws.
>
> Best Regards
> Vany
> :-)
>
>
>
> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
> IT Specialist
> Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
> Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
> Fax: (507) 230-3646
> e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa
> http://www.sdnp.org.pa
>
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Andrew McLaughlin wrote:
>
> > 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: vany@SDNP.ORG.PA
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1729M@lyris.isoc.org
> >
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: quaynor@ghana.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