Re: [ncc-charter] Re: Replacing Section F of the Charter

From: Milton Mueller (
Date: Mon Aug 14 2000 - 08:38:54 PDT

  • Next message: Milton Mueller: "[ncc-charter] Access is still blocked"

    The simple solution to our disagreement is to have Adcom succession when there
    is no replacement candidate. I will redraft the amendment to reflect this later

    Why have replacement candidates? There are two important reasons.

    1. It is more representative.
    Candidates from different regions will hold very different views and have
    support from different parts of the constituency. If a candidate from, say, Asia
    Pacific gains 40 votes and the fourth Adcom candidate gains only 10, the large
    number of people who voted for the AP candidate will have their representation
    on the Names Council completely eliminated if the 10-vote candidate is their
    successor. However, if the AP candidate picks a replacement that is both:
    * from the same region and
    * acceptable to the people who voted for the original candidate,
    then their views are still represented.

    Here is a specific example. Suppose that Vany of Latin America runs for NC and
    comes in third place. Suppose that Jamie Love of North America also runs and
    comes in 4th. Vany would be the NC representative. Now, under my proposal, Vany
    can pick a Latin American region replacement candidate that has similar views
    and a similar constituency. So if she has to resign, the larger number of
    members who voted for her are still represented.

    Under Kent's proposal, if Vany resigned she would be replaced by Jamie Love. Now
    I like Jamie a lot, but I am quite sure that his views and the constituency
    members he is closest to are *very* different from Vany's. So why should he
    inherit Vany's seat on the Names Council?

    2. It is more practical.
    Resignation of a NC member is a voluntary act. It is quite possible that a NC
    member who ought to resign will refuse to do so, and just hang on while failing
    to attend meetings or do any work. Why would they do this? Well, maybe they
    don't like the views or the personality of the person who would replace them.
    Note that there is no way in our charter for the Adcom or the constituency to
    force someone to resign for non-attendance. The replacement candidate proposal
    avoids this problem. A NC member who cannot perform will feel more comfortable
    resigning if they know that their replacement is someone from the same region
    and with compatible views.

    Really, the proposal I have submitted is much more sensible. Let's put aside
    personal antagonisms and support what is best for the NCC, OK? Also, let's keep
    in mind that resignations are probably rare.

    One final point. Kent's suggestion that this new proposal is not acceptable to
    ICANN is completely wrong. The old, "alternate" proposal allowed the alternate
    to fill in for a NC member at any time. That violated the by-laws because we
    elected more than three members to NC. This new proposal does not do that. The
    replacement candidate cannot serve on the NC unless the original candidate
    resigns. There is no doubt about the legality of the new proposal. But it is
    easy to clear up -- ask Andrew McLaughlin. I'm sure he will confirm that there
    is no problem. It is simply a succession method.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 14 2000 - 08:39:38 PDT