On Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 07:17:51PM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kent Crispin" <email@example.com>
> > It does not deal with the succession problem when the candidate does
> > not have an alternate, and it does not deal with the problem when the
> > NC rep and the alternate are both indisposed.
> And it doesn't cure AIDs. Your point?
You said in your explanation: "The point of this amendment is to secure
continuous and effective representation for the NCC in the event of a
resignation." That is, the point is to deal with the succession problem.
As you agree, it doesn't do that, in addition to not curing AIDs.
> Certainly my proposal could be modified to *require* an alternate. I would
> accept that as a friendly amendment if that's your intention.
No -- that is not my intention. I don't want to force people to run
with alternates -- it would mean an otherwise strong candidacy could be
seriously weakened if the candidate couldn't find a good alternate, or
chose an unpopular alternate...
Moreover, I think that the alternate proposal has been pretty thoroughly
dismissed, and I don't want to try to sneak in some ersatz variation.
Nii's proposal to have succession go down through the adcom is a simple,
common sense method that ICANN won't reject.
It may be useful to summarize the succession process for the other
ccTLD: adcom selects short term replacement; election must be held for
vacancy of 3 months or longer
Business: Not addressed in their charter, as near as I can tell
ISP: Not addressed, but have staggered terms and elections every 8 months
Registrars: Not addressed.
IPC: President and officers of IPC pick a short term replacement;
election required if more than a 6 month vacancy.
-- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be firstname.lastname@example.org lonesome." -- Mark Twain
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 13 2000 - 23:58:57 PDT